Contaminación Acústica


Title
Contaminación Acústica
URI
http://vocab.linkeddata.es/datosabiertos/def/urbanismo-infraestructuras/equipamiento-municipal
Description
Este vocabulario describe de forma concreta los equipamientos municipales. Para ello lleva a cabo una clasificacion de los mismos basada en un tesauro de hasta tres niveles de profundidad. La ontologia se desarrollo tras la necesidad de la descentralizacion e independencia por parte de cada organizacion (tanto nacional como intarnacional) a la hora de la publicacion de datos referentes equipameintos municipales. Este vocabulario y su correcpondiente tesauro estan en proceso de revision continua hasta que se consolide como un vocabulario de referencia para la descripcion de equipamientos municipales, por lo que sus terminos pueden sufrir cambios en los proximos meses. Para el correcto entendimiento de la estructura de datos de esta ontologia debe quedar claro que un equiamiento municipal es un conjunto de edificaciones y espacios, predominantemente de uso publico, en los que se realizan actividades complementarias a las de habitacion y trabajo, o bien, en las que se proporcionan a la poblacion servicios de bienestar social y de apoyo a las actividades economicas.
License
Creative Commons CC-BY
Languages
es en

The following evaluation results have been generated by the RESTFul web service provided by OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!). OOPS! is a software on development, and we will be happy to receive your feedbak. If you notice any issue in the evaluation, please contact us at oops@delicias.dia.fi.upm.es.

OOPS! logoIt 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

P04. Creating unconnected ontology elements2 cases detected. Minor

Ontology elements (classes, object properties and datatype properties) are created isolated, with no relation to the rest of the ontology.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P08. Missing annotations87 cases detected. 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].

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P11. Missing domain or range in properties13 cases detected. Important

P12. Equivalent properties not explicitly declared1 case detected. Important

The ontology lacks information about equivalent properties (owl:equivalentProperty) in the cases of duplicated relationships and/or attributes.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

    P13. Inverse relationships not explicitly declared57 cases detected. Minor

    P22. Using different naming conventions in the ontology ontology *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

    P32. Several classes with the same label13 cases detected. Minor

    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.

    This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

      P34. Untyped class2 cases detected. 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 affects to the following ontology elements:

      P40. Namespace hijacking1 case detected. Critical

      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 affects to the following ontology elements:


      References: