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
› https://w3id.org/wfont#GearboxComponent

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/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary

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:
› https://w3id.org/wfont#hasIndicator
› https://w3id.org/wfont#hasPart

• 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!

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:
› https://w3id.org/wfont#hasPart
› https://w3id.org/wfont#hasIndicator
› https://w3id.org/eep#usedProcedure
› https://w3id.org/eep#onQuality
› https://w3id.org/eep#implements
› https://w3id.org/eep#hasFeatureOfInterest
› https://w3id.org/eep#forQuality
› https://w3id.org/eep#forFeatureOfInterest
› https://w3id.org/affectedBy#belongsTo
› https://w3id.org/affectedBy#affectedBy

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.

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:
› https://w3id.org/wfont#ISO6, https://w3id.org/wfont#ISO14, https://w3id.org/wfont#ISO4
› https://w3id.org/wfont#ISO14, https://w3id.org/wfont#ISO4

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://creativecommons.org/ns#license

• 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.

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:

	<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

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:

Evaluation results

Pitfalls detected:

Results for P04: Creating unconnected ontology elements. Minor 2 cases

Results for P08: Missing annotations. Minor1 case 1 case

Results for P10: Missing disjointness. ImportantOntology*

Results for P11: Missing domain or range in properties. Important 2 cases

Results for P13: Inverse relationships not explicitly declared. Minor 10 cases

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

Results for P32: Several classes with the same label. Minor 2 cases

Results for P40: Namespace hijacking. Critical1 case 1 case

Suggestions or warnings:

References

[1] Aguado-De Cea, G., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Poveda-Villalón, M., and Giraldo-Pasmin, O.X. (2015).

[2] Noy, N. F., McGuinness, D. L., et al. (2001).

[3] Gómez-Pérez, A. (1999).

[4] Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Vila Suero, D., Villazón-Terrazas, B., Dunsire, G., Escolano Rodríguez, E., Gómez-Pérez, A. (2011).

[5] Vrandecic, D. (2010).

[6] Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004).

[7] Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., and Wroe, C. (2004).

[8] Hogan, A., Harth, A., Passant, A., Decker, S., and Polleres, A. (2010).

[9] Archer, P., Goedertier, S., and Loutas, N. (2012).

[10] Bernes-Lee Tim. (2006).

[11] Heath, T. and Bizer, C. (2011).

[12] Vatant, B. (2012).

How to cite OOPS!