scanning


OOPS! is scanning...

OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!) helps you to detect some of the most common pitfalls appearing when developing ontologies.

To try it, enter a URI or paste an OWL document into the text field above. A list of pitfalls and the elements of your ontology where they appear will be displayed.

Scanner by URI:

Example: http://oops.linkeddata.es/example/swc_2009-05-09.rdf


Scanner by direct input:

Uncheck this checkbox if you don't want us to keep a copy of your ontology.

Evaluation results

It is obvious that not all the pitfalls are equally important; their impact in the ontology will depend on multiple factors. For this reason, each pitfall has an importance level attached indicating how important it is. We have identified three levels:

  • Critical Critical : It is crucial to correct the pitfall. Otherwise, it could affect the ontology consistency, reasoning, applicability, etc.
  • Important Important : Though not critical for ontology function, it is important to correct this type of pitfall.
  • Minor Minor : It is not really a problem, but by correcting it we will make the ontology nicer.

Results for P04: Creating unconnected ontology elements. 2 cases | Minor Minor

Ontology elements (classes, object properties and datatype properties) are created isolated, with no relation to the rest of the ontology.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://schema.org/Intangible
http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Collection

Results for P05: Defining wrong inverse relationships. 3 cases | Critical Critical

Two relationships are defined as inverse relations when they are not necessarily inverse.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/series may not be inverse of http://comicmeta.org/cbo/seriesOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/contains may not be inverse of http://comicmeta.org/cbo/inBox
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/adaptation may not be inverse of http://comicmeta.org/cbo/adaptationOf

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 36 cases | Minor Minor

This pitfall consists in creating an ontology element and failing to provide human readable annotations attached to it. Consequently, ontology elements lack annotation properties that label them (e.g. rdfs:label, lemon:LexicalEntry, skos:prefLabel or skos:altLabel) or that define them (e.g. rdfs:comment or dc:description). This pitfall is related to the guidelines provided in [5].

• The following elements have no rdfs:label defined:
http://schema.org/ComicCoverArt
http://schema.org/ComicIssue
http://schema.org/IndividualProduct
http://schema.org/Intangible
http://schema.org/CoverArt
http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/PhysicalObject
http://schema.org/PublicationIssue
http://schema.org/Product
http://schema.org/CreativeWork
http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Collection
http://schema.org/Person
http://schema.org/Periodical
http://schema.org/VisualArtwork
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent
http://schema.org/Organization
http://schema.org/ComicStory
http://schema.org/ComicSeries
http://schema.org/PublicationVolume
http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf
http://purl.org/dc/terms/hasVersion
http://purl.org/dc/terms/isVersionOf
http://schema.org/contributor
http://schema.org/publisher
http://purl.org/dc/terms/language
http://schema.org/creator
http://purl.org/dc/terms/hasPart
http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier
http://schema.org/url
http://schema.org/name
http://schema.org/issn
http://schema.org/isbn
https://bib.schema.org/variantCover
http://purl.org/dc/terms/alternative
http://purl.org/dc/terms/description
http://purl.org/dc/terms/date
http://purl.org/dc/terms/title

Results for P10: Missing disjointness. ontology* | Important Important

The ontology lacks disjoint axioms between classes or between properties that should be defined as disjoint. This pitfall is related with the guidelines provided in [6], [2] and [7].

*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements.

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 20 cases | Important Important

Object and/or datatype properties without domain or range (or none of them) are included in the ontology.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://purl.org/dc/terms/hasPart
http://schema.org/creator
http://schema.org/publisher
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/artworkType
http://schema.org/contributor
http://purl.org/dc/terms/isVersionOf
http://purl.org/dc/terms/hasVersion
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/plotter
http://purl.org/dc/terms/isPartOf
http://purl.org/dc/terms/title
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/note
http://purl.org/dc/terms/date
http://purl.org/dc/terms/description
http://purl.org/dc/terms/alternative
https://bib.schema.org/variantCover
http://schema.org/isbn
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/price
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/isbn
http://schema.org/url
http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier

Tip: Solving this pitfall may lead to new results for other pitfalls and suggestions. We encourage you to solve all cases when needed and see what else you can get from OOPS!

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. 65 cases | Minor Minor

This pitfall appears when any relationship (except for those that are defined as symmetric properties using owl:SymmetricProperty) does not have an inverse relationship (owl:inverseOf) defined within the ontology.

• OOPS! has the following suggestions for the relationships without inverse:
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/owner could be inverse of http://comicmeta.org/cbo/ownerOf

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/format
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/copyState
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/distributedBy
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/editor
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/colorist
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/caption
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/plotter
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/box
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/story
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/team
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/language
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/universe
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/binding
http://purl.org/dc/terms/hasVersion
http://purl.org/dc/terms/isVersionOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/character
http://schema.org/contributor
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/artworkType
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/object
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/event
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/condition
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/collection
http://schema.org/publisher
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/grade
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/panel
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/inker
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/paper
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/material
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/coverArt
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/publicationFrequency
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/artist
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/penciller
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/pageType
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/genre
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/edition
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/coverArtist
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/encased
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/boarded
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/page
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/related
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/comicAge
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/preview
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/contributor
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/quality
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/bagged
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/cameo
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/guaranteedBy
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/attribute
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/balloon
http://purl.org/dc/terms/language
http://schema.org/creator
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/universeOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/letterer
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/country
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/appearance
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/state
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/sequence
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/writer
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/subject
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/role
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/creator
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/publisher
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/rating

Results for P19: Defining multiple domains or ranges in properties. 5 cases | Critical Critical

The domain or range (or both) of a property (relationships and attributes) is defined by stating more than one rdfs:domain or rdfs:range statements. In OWL multiple rdfs:domain or rdfs:range axioms are allowed, but they are interpreted as conjunction, being, therefore, equivalent to the construct owl:intersectionOf. This pitfall is related to the common error that appears when defining domains and ranges described in [7].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/creator
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/state
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/owner
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/ownerOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/pageCount

Results for P30: Equivalent classes not explicitly declared. 3 cases | Important Important

This pitfall consists in missing the definition of equivalent classes (owl:equivalentClass) in case of duplicated concepts. When an ontology reuses terms from other ontologies, classes that have the same meaning should be defined as equivalent in order to benefit the interoperability between both ontologies.

• The following classes might be equivalent:
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/Publication, http://comicmeta.org/cbo/Issue
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/Character, http://comicmeta.org/cbo/Role, http://comicmeta.org/cbo/Quality
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/Event, http://comicmeta.org/cbo/Issue

Results for P31: Defining wrong equivalent classes. 1 case | Critical Critical

Two classes are defined as equivalent, using owl:equivalentClass, when they are not necessarily equivalent.

• The following classes might not be equivalent:
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/Issue, http://schema.org/ComicIssue

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 19 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/translationOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/translationOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/variant
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/storyOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/storyOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/storyArc
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/storyArc
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/collectedIn
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/preview
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/adaptationOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/adaptationOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/reprints
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/translation
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/universeOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/universeOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/collects
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/variantOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/variantOf
http://comicmeta.org/cbo/reprintedIn


According to the highest importance level of pitfall found in your ontology the conformace bagde suggested is "Critical pitfalls" (see below). You can use the following HTML code to insert the badge within your ontology documentation:


Critical pitfalls were found
<p>
<a href="http://oops.linkeddata.es"><img
	src="http://oops.linkeddata.es/resource/image/oops_critical.png"
	alt="Critical pitfalls were found" height="69.6" width="100" /></a>
</p>


References:

  • [1] Aguado-De Cea, G., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Poveda-Villalón, M., and Giraldo-Pasmin, O.X. (2015). Lexicalizing Ontologies: The issues behind the labels. In Multimodal communication in the 21st century: Professional and academic challenges. 33rd Conference of the Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics (AESLA), XXXIII AESLA.
  • [2] Noy, N. F., McGuinness, D. L., et al. (2001). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology.
  • [3] Gómez-Pérez, A. (1999). Evaluation of Taxonomic Knowledge in Ontologies and Knowledge Bases. Proceedings of the Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop. Alberta, Canada.
  • [4] Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Vila Suero, D., Villazón-Terrazas, B., Dunsire, G., Escolano Rodríguez, E., Gómez-Pérez, A. (2011). Style guidelines for naming and labeling ontologies in the multilingual web.
  • [5] Vrandecic, D. (2010). Ontology Evaluation. PhD thesis.
  • [6] Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004). Ontology evaluation. In Handbook on ontologies, pages 251-273. Springer.
  • [7] Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., and Wroe, C. (2004). Owl pizzas: Practical experience of teaching owl-dl: Common errors & common patterns. In Engineering Knowledge in the Age of the Semantic Web, pages 63-81. Springer.
  • [8] Hogan, A., Harth, A., Passant, A., Decker, S., and Polleres, A. (2010). Weaving the pedantic web. In Proceedings of the WWW2010 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, LDOW 2010, Raleigh, USA, April 27, 2010.
  • [9] Archer, P., Goedertier, S., and Loutas, N. (2012). D7. 1.3-study on persistent URIs, with identification of best practices and recommendations on the topic for the Mss and the EC. PwC EU Services.
  • [10] Bernes-Lee Tim. (2006). “Linked Data - Design issues”. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
  • [11] Heath, T. and Bizer, C. (2011). Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space. Morgan & Claypool, 1st edition.
  • [12] Vatant, B. (2012). Is your linked data vocabulary 5-star?. http://bvatant.blogspot.fr/2012/02/is-your-linked-data-vocabulary-5-star_9588.html

How to cite OOPS!

Poveda-Villalón, María, Asunción Gómez-Pérez, and Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa. "OOPS!(Ontology Pitfall Scanner!): An on-line tool for ontology evaluation." International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS) 10.2 (2014): 7-34.


BibTex:


@article{poveda2014oops,
 title={{OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!): An On-line Tool for Ontology Evaluation}},
 author={Poveda-Villal{\'o}n, Mar{\'i}a and G{\'o}mez-P{\'e}rez, Asunci{\'o}n and Su{\'a}rez-Figueroa, Mari Carmen},
 journal={International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems (IJSWIS)},
 volume={10},
 number={2},
 pages={7--34},
 year={2014},
 publisher={IGI Global}
}

Please, help us making OOPS! better. Feedback is more than welcome!
In addition, you can also suggest new pitfalls so that they can be detected in future evaluations.

Want to help?

Documentation:

Related papers:

Web services:

Developed by:

OEG logo