Evaluation Result Ontology
- Title
- Evaluation Result Ontology
- URI
- http://purl.org/net/EvaluationResult
- Description
- The Evaluation Result ontology is an ontology for describing evaluation results and related resources in a quality evaluation process.
- License
- Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA
- Creation Date
- 2015-07-29
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.
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
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:
Object and/or datatype properties without domain or range (or none of them) are included in the ontology.
This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:
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 affects to the following ontology elements:
- http://purl.org/net/EvaluationResult#forMeasure
- http://purl.org/net/EvaluationResult#performedOn
- http://purl.org/net/EvaluationResult#belongsToCategory
- http://purl.org/net/EvaluationResult#inputData
- http://purl.org/net/EvaluationResult#isMeasuredOnScale
- http://purl.org/net/EvaluationResult#hasSubCategory
- http://purl.org/net/EvaluationResult#evaluatedSubject
- http://purl.org/net/EvaluationResult#isMeasuredInUnit
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].
This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:
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
References:
- [1] Gómez-Pérez, 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).