FIESTA-Priv Ontology


Title
FIESTA-Priv Ontology
URI
http://purl.org/iot/ontology/fiesta-priv#
Version
1.0

The following evaluation results have been generated by the RESTFul web service provided by OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!).

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 elements9 cases detected. Minor

P05. Defining wrong inverse relationships10 cases detected. Critical

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

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 annotations2 cases 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:

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 definitions38 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:

P30. Equivalent classes not explicitly declared4 cases detected. Important

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:

P31. Defining wrong equivalent classes2 cases detected. Critical

Two classes are defined as equivalent, using owl:equivalentClass, when they are not necessarily equivalent.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology 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 class7 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:

    References: