Stream Annotation Ontology - SAO


Title
Stream Annotation Ontology - SAO
URI
http://iot.ee.surrey.ac.uk/citypulse/ontologies/sao/sao.rdf
Description
aims to semantically represent the features of a stream data. It allows publishing content-derived data about IoT streams and provides concepts such as StreamData, Segment, StreamAnalysis on top of the TimeLine concepts. Timeline Ontology extends OWL-Time with various timelines (e.g.\ universal or discrete), temporal concepts, such as Instant, and Interval, and interval relationships. The SAO uses the broad definition of the StreamEvent concept in order to express an artificial classification of a time region, corresponding to a particular stream data. It also extends the sensor observations described in SSN Ontology ssn:Observation through a concept, StreamData, that allows to describe Segment or Point linked to time intervals or time instants. Below is the depiction of the workflow of the SAO Ontology.
License
CC-BY 3.0
Languages
English
Ontology languages
RDF-S OWL
Ontology format
Turtle RDF/XML
Alignments
See alignments

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.

P04. Creating unconnected ontology elements2 cases detected. Minor

Ontology elements (classes, relationships or attributes) are created with no relation to the rest of the ontology. An example of this type of pitfall is to create the relationship "memberOfTeam" and to miss the class representing teams; thus, the relationship created is isolated in the ontology.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P06. Including cycles in the hierarchy [1, 2]2 cases detected. Critical

A cycle between two classes in the hierarchy is included in the ontology, although it is not intended to have such classes as equivalent. That is, some class A has a subclass B and at the same time B is a superclass of A. An example of this type of pitfall is represented by the class "Professor" as subclass of "Person", and the class "Person" as subclass of "Professor".

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P08. Missing annotations33 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:

P10. Missing disjointness [1, 2, 3] ontology *Important

The ontology lacks disjoint axioms between classes or between properties that should be defined as disjoint. For example, we can create the classes "Odd" and "Even" (or the classes "Prime" and "Composite") without being disjoint; such representation is not correct based on the definition of these types of numbers.

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

P11. Missing domain or range in properties5 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 relationships6 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:

P36. URI contains file extension ontology *Minor

Guidelines in [5] suggest avoiding file extension in persistent URIs, particularly those related to the technology used, as for example ".php" or ".py". In our case we have adapted it to the ontology web languages used to formalized ontologies and their serializations. In this regard, we consider as pitfall including file extensions as ".owl", ".rdf", ".ttl", ".n3" and ".rdfxml" in an ontology URI. An example of this pitfall (at 29th June, 2012) could be found in the "BioPAX Level 3 ontology (biopax)" ontology��s URI (http://www.biopax.org/release/biopax-level3.owl) that contains the extension ".owl" related to the technology used.

*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements and it appears in the ontology URI: http://iot.ee.surrey.ac.uk/citypulse/ontologies/sao/sao.rdf

References: