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 P08: Missing annotations. 5 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://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#Dataset
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#Catalog
https://w3id.org/opm#Property
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#Distribution
http://www.w3id.org/opm#Property

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. 3 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://w3id.org/iddo#hasProperty
https://w3id.org/iddo#DynamicProperty
https://w3id.org/iddo#NameOfTheDefiningValues

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. 29 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:
https://w3id.org/iddo#ListOfReplacingProperties could be inverse of https://w3id.org/iddo#ParametersOfTheDynamicProperty
https://w3id.org/iddo#ParentGroupOfProperties could be inverse of https://w3id.org/iddo#ListOfReplacedGroupsOfProperties
https://w3id.org/iddo#ListOfReplacedGroupsOfProperties could be inverse of https://w3id.org/iddo#ListOfReplacingGroupsOfProperties
https://w3id.org/iddo#ParametersOfTheDynamicProperty could be inverse of https://w3id.org/iddo#ConnectedProperties
https://w3id.org/iddo#ConnectedProperties could be inverse of https://w3id.org/iddo#ListOfReplacedProperties

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
https://w3id.org/iddo#GroupsOfProperties
https://w3id.org/iddo#Unit
https://w3id.org/iddo#hasPropertyReference
https://w3id.org/iddo#hasPropertyGroupReference
https://w3id.org/iddo#DefiningValue
https://w3id.org/iddo#hasDictionaryReferenceDocument
https://w3id.org/iddo#Units
https://w3id.org/iddo#hasProperty
https://w3id.org/iddo#DefiningValues
https://w3id.org/iddo#BoundaryValue
https://w3id.org/iddo#GivenGroupsOfProperties
https://w3id.org/iddo#DigitalFormat
https://w3id.org/iddo#hasDictionarySubset
https://w3id.org/iddo#BoundaryValues
https://w3id.org/iddo#RelationsOfThePropertyIdentifiersInTheInterconnectedDataDictionaries
https://w3id.org/iddo#ListOfPossibleValuesInLanguageN
https://w3id.org/iddo#RelationsOfTheGroupOfPropertiesIdentifiersInTheInterconnectedDataDictionaries
https://w3id.org/iddo#TextFormat
https://w3id.org/iddo#SymbolsOfTheProperty

Results for P19: Defining multiple domains or ranges in properties. 19 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:
https://w3id.org/iddo#DateOfRevision
https://w3id.org/iddo#CountryOfOrigin
https://w3id.org/iddo#InterConDictID
https://w3id.org/iddo#CountryOfUse
https://w3id.org/iddo#VersionNumber
https://w3id.org/iddo#VisualRepresentation
https://w3id.org/iddo#DefinitionInLanguage
https://w3id.org/iddo#Status
https://w3id.org/iddo#RevisionNumber
https://w3id.org/iddo#DateOfVersion
https://w3id.org/iddo#CreatorsLanguage
https://w3id.org/iddo#DeprecationExplanation
https://w3id.org/iddo#DateOfCreation
https://w3id.org/iddo#DateOfLastChange
https://w3id.org/iddo#DateOfDeactivation
https://w3id.org/iddo#SubdivisionOfUse
https://w3id.org/iddo#NameInLanguage
https://w3id.org/iddo#GloballyUniqueIdentifier
https://w3id.org/iddo#DateOfActivation

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:
https://w3id.org/iddo#InterConDictID
https://w3id.org/iddo#DateOfDeactivation

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 P34: Untyped class. 11 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:
https://schema.org/Organization
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#Catalog
https://schema.org/PropertyValue
https://schema.org/Person
http://qudt.org/schema/qudt/Unit
http://www.w3id.org/opm#Property
https://w3id.org/iddo#ReferenceDocument
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#Dataset
http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#NodeShape
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#Distribution
https://w3id.org/opm#Property

Results for P35: Untyped property. 2 cases | Important Important

An ontology element is used as a property without having been explicitly declared as such using the primitives rdf:Property, owl:ObjectProperty or owl:DatatypeProperty. This pitfall is related with the common problems listed in [8].

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#dataset
http://www.w3.org/ns/dcat#distribution

SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties. 7 cases

The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?
https://w3id.org/iddo#ListOfReplacingProperties
https://w3id.org/iddo#ParentGroupOfProperties
https://w3id.org/iddo#ListOfReplacedGroupsOfProperties
https://w3id.org/iddo#ListOfReplacingGroupsOfProperties
https://w3id.org/iddo#ParametersOfTheDynamicProperty
https://w3id.org/iddo#ConnectedProperties
https://w3id.org/iddo#ListOfReplacedProperties


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