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 P07: Merging different concepts in the same class. 12 cases | Minor Minor

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

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/in-situ_propellant_and_consumable_production
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/National_Commission_for_Aerospace_Research_and_Development
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/Centre_for_Remote_Imaging,_Sensing_and_Processing
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/technical_and_economic_detailed_feasibility_evaluation
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/Aeronautics_and_Space_Research_Organization
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/National_Space_Research_and_Development_Agency
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/concentration_of_silicates_or_stony
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/Australasian_Institute_of_Mining_and_Metallurgy
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/The_Canadian_Institute_of_Mining_Metallurgy_and_Petroleum
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/United_Nations_Framework_Classification_for_Fossil_Energy_and_Mineral_Reserves_and_Resources_2009
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/Geo-Informatics_and_Space_Technology_Development_Agency
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/technical_and_economic_evaluations

Results for P08: Missing annotations. 1 case | 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:
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/age

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. 116 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:
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/owns
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000136
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0000086
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002015
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002428
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002217
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/orbiting
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000067
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002584
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002388
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0001001
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002131
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002329
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002327
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002219
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002352
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002598
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002508
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002014
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002354
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002305
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004046
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002025
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002017
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002326
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000219
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002203
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002286
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002559
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0001000
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002500
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002328
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002353
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002351
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004035
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002597
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002213
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002304
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000299
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002013
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002331
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002432
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002234
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002609
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002221
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000051
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0001019
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/owned_by
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002502
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004034
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002350
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002212
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002008
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002018
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002090
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002629
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002263
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002384
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002596
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/transported_by
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0000053
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/considers_in_the_study
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002418
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002023
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002324
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002086
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000050
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002431
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002335
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/has_origin
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002314
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002608
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/transports
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0000052
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/is_supported_by_study
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002412
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004031
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004033
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0001025
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000312
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002216
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000293
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/benefits_from
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002404
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0000080
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002218
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000295
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004047
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002430
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002151
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002087
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002323
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004032
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002387
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002405
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0001015
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002578
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002019
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002264
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002429
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002427
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002566
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002385
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002473
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002411
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002024
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002180
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002255
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002379
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002336
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002022
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002163
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0000081
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002630
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002410
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002333

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. 71 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://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002222 could be inverse of http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002501

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002410
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002170
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002163
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002509
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002379
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002180
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002473
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002385
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002429
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002264
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002019
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0001015
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/OBI_0000124
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002387
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004032
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002323
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002151
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002430
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004047
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002220
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002479
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/able_to_be_output_of
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/benefits_from
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002216
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004033
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004031
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/is_supported_by_study
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002314
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/has_origin
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002595
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002431
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002086
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002324
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/considers_in_the_study
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0009501
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002596
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002384
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002263
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002018
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002008
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004034
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002502
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002609
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002432
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002331
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002013
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002304
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002597
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004035
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002328
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000219
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002326
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002017
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002025
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004046
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002305
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0004028
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002354
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002506
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002014
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002598
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002329
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002131
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002388
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002584
https://purl.org/esric/sronto/orbiting
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002428
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002015
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000136

Results for P20: Misusing ontology annotations. 2 cases | Minor Minor

The contents of some annotation properties are swapped or misused. This pitfall might affect annotation properties related to natural language information (for example, annotations for naming such as rdfs:label or for providing descriptions such as rdfs:comment). Other types of annotation could also be affected as temporal, versioning information, among others.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://purl.unep.org/sdg/SDGIO_00010024
http://purl.unep.org/sdg/SDGIO_00010023

Results for P22: Using different naming conventions in the ontology. ontology* | Minor Minor

The ontology elements are not named following the same convention (for example CamelCase or use of delimiters as "-" or "_") . Some notions about naming conventions are provided in [2].

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

Results for P30: Equivalent classes not explicitly declared. 2 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://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000308, http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000101
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000023, http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/BFO_0000034

Results for P33: Creating a property chain with just one property. 1 case | Minor Minor

The OWL 2 construct owl:propertyChainAxiom allows a property to be defined as the composition of several properties (see http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/F8:_Property_Chain_Inclusion for additional details). In this sense, when an individual "a" is connected with an individual "b" by a chain of two or more object properties (specified in the antecedent of the chain), it is necessary to connect "a" with "b" by using the object property in the consequent of the chain. This pitfall consists in creating a property chain (owl:propertyChainAxiom) that includes only one property in the antecedent part.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:

Results for P34: Untyped class. 4 cases | Important Important

An ontology element is used as a class without having been explicitly declared as such using the primitives owl:Class or rdfs:Class. This pitfall is related with the common problems listed in [8].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrl#Variable
http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrl#IndividualPropertyAtom
http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrl#Imp
http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrl#ClassAtom

Results for P39: Ambiguous namespace. ontology* | Critical Critical

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.

Results for P40: Namespace hijacking. 1 case | Critical Critical

It refers to reusing or referring to terms from another namespace that are not defined in such namespace. This is an undesirable situation as no information can be retrieved when looking up those undefined terms. This pitfall is related to the Linked Data publishing guidelines provided in [11]: "Only define new terms in a namespace that you control" and to the guidelines provided in [5].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://www.geneontology.org/formats/oboInOwl#id

• For detecting this pitfall we rely on TripleChecker. See more results at TripleChecker website. Up to now this pitfall is only available for the "Scanner by URI" option.

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 8 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002170
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002222
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002220
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002501
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0003000
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002258
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0003001
http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0002506


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