- Title
- URI
- https://w3id.org/def/NyOnLegalOntology#
- Version
- 1.0
The following evaluation results have been generated by the RESTFul web service provided by OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!).
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
- 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.
Evaluation results
The relationship "is" is created in the ontology instead of using OWL primitives for representing the subclass relationship (rdfs:subClassOf), class membership (rdf:type), or the equality between instances (owl:sameAs). When concerning a class hierarchy, this pitfall is related to the guidelines for understanding the "is-a" relation provided in [2].
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.
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].
Object and/or datatype properties without domain or range (or none of them) are included in the ontology.
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].
Ontology elements (classes, object properties and datatype properties) are created isolated, with no relation to the rest of the ontology.
References:
- [1] Gómez-Pórez, A. Ontology Evaluation. Handbook on Ontologies. S. Staab and R. Studer Editors. Springer. International Handbooks on Information Systems. Pp: 251-274. 2004.
- [2] Noy, N.F., McGuinness. D. L. Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology. Technical Report SMI-2001-0880, Standford Medical Informatics. 2001.
- [3] Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R.,; Wang, H., Wroe, C. ''Owl pizzas: Practical experience of teaching owl-dl: Common errors and common patterns''. In Proc. of EKAW 2004, pp: 63-81. Springer. 2004.
- [4] Hogan, A., Harth, A., Passant, A., Decker, S., Polleres, A. Weaving the Pedantic Web. Linked Data on the Web Workshop LDOW2010 at WWW2010 (2010).
- [5] Archer, P., Goedertier, S., and Loutas, N. D7.1.3 - Study on persistent URIs, with identification of best practices and recommendations on the topic for the MSs and the EC. Deliverable. December 17, 2012.
- [6] Heath, T., Bizer, C.: Linked data: Evolving the Web into a global data space (1st edition). Morgan & Claypool (2011).