Vocabulario para la representación de datos de una dirección postal en España


Title
Vocabulario para la representación de datos de una dirección postal en España
URI
http://vocab.linkeddata.es/datosabiertos/def/urbanismo-infraestructuras/direccion-postal
Description
Este vocabulario se utiliza para la descripción de una dirección postal. Reutiliza términos de varios vocabularios que actualmente se utilizan para propósitos similares, incluyendo: - Core Location Vocabulary, schema.org y vCard, que definen la clase Address - WGS84 y GeoSPARQL para la representación de las coordenadas geográficas. - División Administrativa Española y Callejero Asimismo, se actualizará de acuerdo con la evolución de estos vocabularios (especialmente los que están en pleno desarrollo en el momento de creación de este vocabulario, como vCard) y se tendrá en cuenta en el futuro el trabajo que se desarrolle en el grupo del W3C denominado Location And Addresses Community Group (http://www.w3.org/community/locadd/). Este vocabulario aún se encuentra en una situación inestable.
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

P08. Missing annotations16 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:

P10. Missing disjointness ontology *Important

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

P11. Missing domain or range in properties20 cases detected. Important

P12. Equivalent properties not explicitly declared3 cases 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 declared3 cases detected. Minor

    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:

    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

    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: