The Aemet Ontology Network

Title: The Aemet Ontology Network
URI: http://aemet.linkeddata.es/ontology
Description: Ontology network for the AEMET project. This model describes meteorological information.
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.

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

P04. Creating unconnected ontology elements3 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 annotations52 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 properties17 cases detected. Important

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:

P13. Inverse relationships not explicitly declared22 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:

P20. Misusing ontology annotations1 case detected. Minor

The contents of some annotation properties are swapped or misused. This pitfall might affect annotation properties related to natural language information (for example, annotations for naming such as rdfs:label or for providing descriptions such as rdfs:comment). Other types of annotation could also be affected as temporal, versioning information, among others.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

http://www.w3.org/2006/time#dayOfWeek

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

P24. Using recursive definitions2 cases detected. Important

An ontology element (a class, an object property or a datatype property) is used in its own definition. Some examples of this would be: (a) the definition of a class as the enumeration of several classes including itself; (b) the appearance of a class within its owl:equivalentClass or rdfs:subClassOf axioms; (c) the appearance of an object property in its rdfs:domain or range rdfs:range definitions; or (d) the appearance of a datatype property in its rdfs:domain definition.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P27. Defining wrong equivalent properties1 case detected. Critical

Two object properties or two datatype properties are defined as equivalent, using owl:equivalentProperty, even though they do not have the same semantics.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#location http://aemet.linkeddata.es/ontology/locatedIn

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).