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. 6 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/Event
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#ConceptScheme
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#Contract
http://schema.org/PostalAddress
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#AwardCriteriaCombination

Results for P07: Merging different concepts in the same class. 1 case | Minor Minor

A class whose name refers to two or more different concepts is created.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#ContractOrProcedureExtinction

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 46 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://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#minutesDocumentReference
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#onBehalfOf
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#lot
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#awardCriterion
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/member
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#actualPrice
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#documentReference
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#price
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureVoid
http://schema.org/location
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrower
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#resolutionDocumentReference
http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#hasPriceSpecification
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#awardCriteriaCombination
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#topConceptOf
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureResignation
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureWaive
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#supplier
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#legalDocumentReference
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#contractingAuthority
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractResolution
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#tender
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#offeredPrice
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#additionalDocumentReference
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#technicalDocumentReference
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#criterionWeight
http://purl.org/dc/terms/title
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#actualEndDate
http://schema.org/addressCountry
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#offeredDuration
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#estimatedDuration
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#tenderManteinanceDuration
http://purl.org/dc/terms/date
http://purl.org/dc/terms/description
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#duration
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#actualDuration
http://schema.org/address
http://schema.org/streetAddress
http://schema.org/name
http://schema.org/postalAddress
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#criteronName
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#finalFinancialGuaranteeDuration
http://schema.org/addressLocality
http://schema.org/startDate

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 P12: Equivalent properties not explicitly declared. 1 case | Important Important

The ontology lacks information about equivalent properties (owl:equivalentProperty) in the cases of duplicated relationships and/or attributes.

• The following relations could be defined as equivalent:
http://schema.org/location, http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#location

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. 78 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.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#tenderAdmissionMeeting
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#committee
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#electronicAuctionWeb
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractModification
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractEconomicConditions
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#noticeWeb
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#frameworkAgreementDerivativeContract
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#technicalDocumentReference
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#additionalDocumentReference
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractModificationConditions
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#offeredPrice
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#delegatingAuthority
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#provision
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#tender
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#alternateMember
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractResolution
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#tenderBriefing
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#criterionScore
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#remedy
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#notice
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractingBodyAgreement
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#contractingAuthority
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#tenderSubmissionLocation
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#fullMember
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#legalDocumentReference
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#supplier
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureWaive
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#feePrice
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureType
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureResignation
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#websiteWithInformation
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#briefing
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#lot
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractObject
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#topConceptOf
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#awardCriteriaCombination
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#mainObject
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#frameworkAgreement
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#electronicAuctionPhase
http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#hasPriceSpecification
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#informationKind
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#tenderRequirements
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractOrProcedureExtinction
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#resolutionDocumentReference
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractBodies
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrower
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#tenderersRequirements
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#item
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractExecutionConditions
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#managingDepartment
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#awardAgreement
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#estimatedValue
http://schema.org/location
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureVoid
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#price
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#tenderInformationProvider
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#documentReference
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractTemporalConditions
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#actualPrice
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractActivites
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#electronicAuction
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/member
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#urgencyType
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractingBody
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#awardCriterion
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#location
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#lot
http://purl.org/procurement/public-contracts#onBehalfOf
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#minutesDocumentReference
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractProcedureSpecifications
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#tenderMeeting
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#budgetPrice
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#criterion
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#additionalObject
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#complementaryContract
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#contractAdditionalObligations

Results for P19: Defining multiple domains or ranges in properties. 3 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://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#urgencyType
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#informationKind
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#procedureType

Results for P32: Several classes with the same label. 1 case | Minor Minor

Two or more classes have the same content for natural language annotations for naming, for example the rdfs:label annotation. This pitfall might involve lack of accuracy when defining terms.

• The following classes contains the same label, maybe they should be replaced by one class with several labels or might be equivalent classes:
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#TenderCommittee, http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#Committee

Results for P41: No license declared. ontology* | Important Important

The ontology metadata omits information about the license that applies to the ontology.

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

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 1 case

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://contsem.unizar.es/def/sector-publico/pproc#complementaryContract


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