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://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Project
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/LabelProperty

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://purl.org/dc/terms/Agent
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact#Person

• The following elements have neither rdfs:comment or skos:definition defined:
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#January

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://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/phone
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#exactMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrowerTransitive
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrower
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#closeMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#related
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#narrowMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#mappingRelation
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broaderTransitive
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broadMatch
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#broader
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#relatedMatch
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#hasDuration
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#hasTime
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#hasDurationDescription
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/givenName
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/title
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/nick
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/sha1
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/givenname
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/dnaChecksum
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#notation
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#day
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#year
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#month

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!

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://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#member, http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/member

• The following attributes could be defined as equivalent:
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/givenName, http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/givenname
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/familyName, http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/family_name

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://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalIn could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDisjoint
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDisjoint could be inverse of http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalEquals
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/theme could be inverse of http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/fundedBy
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/fundedBy could be inverse of http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/logo

• Sorry, OOPS! has no suggestions for the following relationships without inverse:
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#timeZone
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#hasDurationDescription
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#inTemporalPosition
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#dayOfWeek
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#hasTime
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#hasDuration
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#hasTRS
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#hasBeginning
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#monthOfYear
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#hasDateTimeDescription
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#inDateTime
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#inTimePosition
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#hasEnd
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#hasTemporalDuration
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#unitType
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#inside
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#memberList
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#inScheme
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#mappingRelation
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#member
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#semanticRelation
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/accountServiceHomepage
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/openid
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/account
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/thumbnail
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/member
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/img
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/tipjar
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/workplaceHomepage
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/knows
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/phone
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/topic_interest
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/pastProject
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/workInfoHomepage
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/focus
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/publications
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/holdsAccount
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/based_near
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/interest
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/weblog
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/schoolHomepage
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/homepage
http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/currentProject

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.

An ontology element (a class, an object property or a datatype property) is used in its own definition. Some examples of this would be: (a) the definition of a class as the enumeration of several classes including itself; (b) the appearance of a class within its owl:equivalentClass or rdfs:subClassOf axioms; (c) the appearance of an object property in its rdfs:domain or range rdfs:range definitions; or (d) the appearance of a datatype property in its rdfs:domain definition.

• This pitfall appears in the following elements:
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#Interval
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#Instant

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://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#Collection, https://w3id.org/timebank#Assembling

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://purl.org/dc/terms/Agent
http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#SpatialThing
http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact#Person

Suggestions or warnings:




According to the highest importance level of pitfall found in your ontology the conformace bagde suggested is "Important 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