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:


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://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/denotes
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/has
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/hasDenotation
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/hasMember
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/identifies
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/isIdentifiedBy
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/isMemberOf
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/classifies
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasPart
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/isClassifiedBy
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/isPartOf
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/isUsedBy
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/uses
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/records
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressTransliterated
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/isQualifiedBy
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/identifies
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasCoverageArea
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/isManagedBy
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasGeographicRegion
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressLegal
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/isRegisteredIn
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressHeadquarters
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasRegistrationStatus
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasRegion
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/hasName
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/hasEnglishName
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/hasFrenchName
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/hasGermanName
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/hasIndigenousName
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/hasTag
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasLocalShortName
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasMaximumLatitude
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasMaximumLongitude
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasLatitude
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasEnglishShortName
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasLongitude
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasFrenchShortName
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasEnglishShortNameInCapitals
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasFrenchFullName
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasNumericRegionCode
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasMinimumLongitude
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasEnglishFullName
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasFrenchShortNameInCapitals
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/hasMinimumLatitude
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressLine3
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNameLegal
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasName
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressNumber
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAbbreviationLocal
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNameASCIIAutomatic
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasTag
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNameAdditionalLocal
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNameASCIIPreferred
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNameASCII
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNameTranslatedEnglish
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasPostalCode
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNameAdditional
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAbbreviation
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNamePreviousLegal
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAbbreviationTransliterated
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressNumberWithinBuilding
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNameLegalLocal
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNameTransliterated
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasInitialRegistrationDate
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasMailRouting
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressLine4
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressLine2
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNextRenewalDate
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasWebsite
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNameLocal
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasLastUpdateDate
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasFirstAddressLine
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasNameTradingOrOperating
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressLine1
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasSuccessorName
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAdditionalAddressLine
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasCity

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:
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/identifies, https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/identifies

• The following attributes could be defined as equivalent:
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasName, https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/hasName
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/hasTag, https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasTag

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://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasRegion
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasRegistrationStatus
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddress
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasEntityExpirationReason
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasSuccessor
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasLegalJurisdiction
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressHeadquarters
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasSource
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/isRegisteredIn
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasEntityStatus
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasCountry
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressLegal
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasTarget
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasGeographicRegion
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/isManagedBy
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasCoverageArea
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/identifies
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/isQualifiedBy
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/hasAddressTransliterated
https://www.gleif.org/ontology/Base/records
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Countries/CountryRepresentation/usesAdministrativeLanguage
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/hasEarlierForm
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/has

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:
https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/Arrangement, https://www.omg.org/spec/LCC/Languages/LanguageRepresentation/Transcription

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/vocommons/voaf#Vocabulary

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/2004/02/skos/core#prefLabel
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#altLabel
http://purl.org/dc/terms/created
http://purl.org/dc/terms/modified
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#notation

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