Research Object Evolution Ontology
- Title
- Research Object Evolution Ontology
- URI
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/roevo
- Description
- http://www.wf4ever-project.org/wiki/download/attachments/2065027/ROevo_v0.4%2823%29.png
- License
- Creative Commons CC-BY
- Languages
- 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.
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
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:
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:
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/ro#Resource
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasRevisionOf
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasAssociatedWith
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/ro#ResearchObject
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasAttributedTo
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Activity
- http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#hadOriginalSource
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#endedAtTime
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Entity
- http://purl.org/ao/annotatesResource
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#Agent
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#generatedAtTime
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#startedAtTime
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/ro#AggregatedAnnotation
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#generated
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasQuotedFrom
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 affects to the following ontology elements:
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/roevo#isArchiveOf
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/roevo#hasRevision
- http://purl.org/dc/terms/identifier
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#generatedAtTime
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#generated
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasAttributedTo
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/roevo#isSnapshotOf
- http://purl.org/ao/annotatesResource
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://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasAssociatedWith
- http://purl.org/ao/annotatesResource
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/roevo#relatedResource
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#generated
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/roevo#hasChange
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/roevo#wasArchivedBy
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/roevo#wasSnapshotedBy
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#used
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasAttributedTo
- http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasGeneratedBy
- http://purl.org/wf4ever/roevo#hasPreviousChange
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.
This pitfall affects to the following ontology 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).