Evaluation results


There are three levels of importance in pitfalls according to their impact on the ontology:
  • Critical It is crucial to correct the pitfall. Otherwise, it could affect the ontology consistency, reasoning, applicability, etc.
  • Important Though not critical for ontology function, it is important to correct this type of pitfall.
  • Minor It is not really a problem, but by correcting it we will make the ontology nicer.

Pitfalls detected:


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://purl.org/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#ConceptScheme
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#Expression
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#Meaning

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 neither rdfs:label or rdfs:comment (nor skos:definition) defined:
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person
http://purl.org/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/synsem#OntoMap
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Organization
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#denotes

• The following elements have neither rdfs:comment or skos:definition defined:
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#Meaning
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#ConceptScheme
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#Expression
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Concept
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme

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.

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/ns/lemon/ontolex#isConceptOf
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/cp/owl/semiotics.owl#denotes
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#morphologicalPattern
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/ontolex#concept
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/vartrans#category
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/vartrans#translation
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/vartrans#target
http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/vartrans#source

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!

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://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/vartrans#SenseRelation, http://www.w3.org/ns/lemon/vartrans#LexicalRelation

This pitfall consists in not declaring the owl:Ontology tag, which provides the ontology metadata. The owl:Ontology tag aims at gathering metadata about a given ontology such as version information, license, provenance, creation date, and so on. It is also used to declare the inclusion of other ontologies.

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

This pitfall consists in declaring neither the ontology URI nor the xml:base namespace. If this is the case, the ontology namespace is matched to the file location. This situation is not desirable, as the location of a file might change while the ontology should remain stable, as proposed in [12].

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

Suggestions or warnings:




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:




References


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.

Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology.

Evaluation of Taxonomic Knowledge in Ontologies and Knowledge Bases. Proceedings of the Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop. Alberta, Canada.

Style guidelines for naming and labeling ontologies in the multilingual web.

Ontology Evaluation. PhD thesis.

Ontology evaluation. In Handbook on ontologies, pages 251-273. Springer.

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.

Weaving the pedantic web. In Proceedings of the WWW2010 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, LDOW 2010, Raleigh, USA, April 27, 2010.

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.

“Linked Data - Design issues”. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html

Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space. Morgan & Claypool, 1st edition.

Is your linked data vocabulary 5-star?. http://bvatant.blogspot.fr/2012/02/is-your-linked-data-vocabulary-5-star_9588.html


Enter your ontology to scan:

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

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





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}
}



OEG logo
ESTIINF logo


Escuela Técnica
Superior de
Ingenieros Informáticos

UPM logo


Universidad
Politécnica
de Madrid