Places Ontology


Title
Places Ontology
URI
http://purl.org/ontology/places
Description
The Places Ontology is a simple lightweight ontology for describing places of geographic interest.
License
CC0
Languages
English
Ontology languages
OWL
Ontology format
RDF/XML Turtle
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.

P04. Creating unconnected ontology elements53 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:

P08. Missing annotations7 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 properties4 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 relationships3 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

P30. Missing equivalent classes5 cases detected. Important

When an ontology is imported into another, classes with the same conceptual meaning that are duplicated in both ontologies should be defined as equivalent classes to benefit the interoperability between both ontologies. However, the ontology developer misses the definition of equivalent classes in the cases of duplicated concepts. An example of this pitfall can be not to have the equivalent knowledge explicitly defined between "Trainer" (class in the imported ontology) and "Coach" (class in the ontology about sports being developed).

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P32. Several classes with the same label6 cases detected. Minor

Two or more classes have the same content in the "rdfs:label" annotation. In some cases they could be defined as equivalent classes (e.g. if they are defined in different namespaces) or they could be replaced by a single class with one or more labels (e.g. if they are defined in the same namespace).

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P34. Untyped class8 cases detected. Important

A resource is used as a class, e.g. appearing as the object of an "rdf:type", "rdfs:domain", or "rdfs:range" statement, or as the subject or object of an "rdfs:subClassOf" statement, without having been declared as a Class.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P40. Namespace hijacking5 cases detected. Critical

This means reusing or referring to terms from other namespaces not actually defined in such namespace. This pitfall is related to the Linked Data publishing guidelines provided in [6], "Only define new terms in a namespace that you control". Example: the "WSMO-Lite Ontology (wl)" which URI is http://www.wsmo.org/ns/wsmo-lite#, uses http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Property that is not defined in the rdf namespace (http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#) instead of using http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property, that is ac-tually defined in the rdfs namespace (http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#).

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

References: