The W3C Time Ontology


Title
The W3C Time Ontology
URI
http://www.w3.org/2006/time
Description
The ontology provides a vocabulary for expressing facts about topological relations among instants and intervals, together with information about durations, and about datetime information.
License
W3C
Languages
English
Ontology languages
OWL
Ontology format
RDF/XML
Issued
2006-9-27
Last modified
2006-10-27
Version
1.0
Alignments
See alignments

See more information about this ontology in Linked Open Vocabularies.

Evaluation results

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.

P08. Missing annotations53 cases detected. Minor

Ontology terms lack annotations properties. This kind of properties improves the ontology understanding and usability from a user point of view.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P11. Missing domain or range in properties7 cases detected. Important

Relationships and/or attributes without domain or range (or none of them) are included in the ontology. There are situations in which the relation is very general and the range should be the most general concept "Thing". However, in other cases, the relations are more specific and it could be a good practice to specify its domain and/or range. An example of this type of pitfall is to create the relationship "hasWritten" in an ontology about art in which the relationship domain should be "Writer" and the relationship range should be "LiteraryWork". This pitfall is related to the common error when defining ranges and domains described in [3].

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P13. Missing inverse relationships10 cases detected. Minor

This pitfall appears when a relationship (except for the symmetric ones) has not an inverse relationship defined within the ontology. For example, the case in which the ontology developer omits the inverse definition between the relations "hasLanguageCode" and "isCodeOf", or between "hasReferee" and "isRefereeOf".

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P24. Using recursive definition2 cases detected. Important

An ontology element is used in its own definition. For example, it is used to create the relationship "hasFork" and to establish as its range the following ���the set of restaurants that have at least one value for the relationship "hasFork".

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P39. Ambiguous namespace ontology *Critical

In the case of not having defined the ontology URI nor the xml:base namespace, the ontology namespace is matched to the file location. This situation is not desirable as the location of a file might change while the ontology should remain stable as proposed in LDV1. An example of this pitfall (at 29th June, 2012) could be found at the "Basic Access Control ontology (acl)" with URI http://www.w3.org/ns/auth/acl has no owl:Ontology tag nor xml:base def-inition.

*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements

References: