Users and Preference Information

Title: Users and Preference Information
URI: https://www.auto.tuwien.ac.at/downloads/thinkhome/ontology/ActorOntology.owl
Description: An ontology describing user information and preferences for a Smart Home Syste.
Languages: English
Ontology languages: OWL
Ontology format: RDF/XML
Version: 1.01
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://www.w3.org/2006/time#February

P08. Missing annotations110 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 properties15 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 relationships20 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:

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: https://www.auto.tuwien.ac.at/downloads/thinkhome/ontology/ActorOntology.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).