Timeline Ontology


Title
Timeline Ontology
URI
http://purl.org/NET/c4dm/timeline.owl#
Description
The ontology extends the OWL-Time ontology (http://www.w3.org/2006/time) with support for several timelines, acting as a backbone to address time interval/instants
License
CC-BY 3.0
Languages
English
Ontology languages
RDF-S OWL
Ontology format
N3
Issued
2007-10-29
Last modified
2007-10-29
Version
1.0
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 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:

P08. Missing annotations134 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 properties50 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:

P12. Missing equivalent properties19 cases detected. Important

When an ontology is imported into another, classes that are duplicated in both ontologies are normally defined as equivalent classes. However, the ontology developer misses the definition of equivalent properties in those cases of duplicated relationships and attributes. For example, the classes "CITY" and "City" in two different ontologies are defined as equivalent classes; however, relationships "hasMember" and "has-Member" in two different ontologies are not defined as equivalent relations.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

The following relations could be defined as equivalent:

The following attibutes could be defined as equivalent:

P13. Missing inverse relationships42 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 definition8 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:

P31. Defining wrong equivalent classes1 case detected. Critical

Two classes are defined as equivalent when they are not necessarily equivalent. For example, defining ��Car�� as equivalent to ��Vehicle��

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://purl.org/NET/c4dm/timeline.owl#

References: