CASCADE Malpensa Airport ontology

Title: CASCADE Malpensa Airport ontology
URI: http://jpo.imp.bg.ac.rs/cascade/airport-ontology/MXP/airportOntologyMXP_TBox.owl
Description: A full-blown ontology model of Malpensa airport (Milan, Italy) which models a specific airport infrastructure by classifying installed technical systems relevant to the energy management aspect. It was developed by extension and population of the CASCADE Generic Facility ontology. Malpensa airport (Milan, Italy) model (TBox) developed within EU FP7 CASCADE project.
Languages: English
Ontology languages: OWL
Ontology format: RDF/XML
Last modified: 2014-11-18
Alignments: See alignments

Evaluation results

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

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.

P04. Creating unconnected ontology elements1 case 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:

http://jpo.imp.bg.ac.rs/cascade/airport-ontology/MXP/airportOntologyMXP_TBox.owl#entity

P08. Missing annotations101 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

P13. Missing inverse relationships2 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:

P22. Using different naming criteria in the ontology ontology *Minor

Ontology elements are not named using the same convention within the whole ontology. It is considered a good practice that the rules and style of lexical encoding for naming the different ontology elements is homogeneous within the ontology. One possibility for rules is that concept names start with capital letters and property names start with non-capital letters. In the case of style, there are different options such as camel case, hyphen style, underscore style, and the combinations. Some notions about naming conventions are provided in [2].

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

P24. Using recursive definition4 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:

P25. Defining a relationship inverse to itself4 cases detected. Important

A relationship is defined as inverse of itself. In this case, this property could have been defined as "owl:SymmetricProperty" instead.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P26. Defining inverse relationships for a symmetric one4 cases detected. Important

A relationship is defined as "owl:SymmetricProperty" and there is also a relationship (it could be itself or another relationship) defined as its inverse.

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://jpo.imp.bg.ac.rs/cascade/airport-ontology/MXP/airportOntologyMXP_TBox.owl

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).