km4city


Title
km4city
URI
http://www.disit.org/km4city/schema
Description
To interconnect the data provided by the Tuscany Region, the Open Data of the City of Florence, and the other Static and Real Time dataset, we started to develop a Knowledge Model, that allows to collect all the data coming from the city, related to mobility, statistics, street graph, sensors, cultural heritage, parkings, weather, services, energy, events.
License
CC-BY-SA 3.0
Languages
English
Ontology languages
OWL
Ontology format
N3 RDF/XML
Issued
2015-3-13
Last modified
2015-3-13
Version
1.4
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 elements11 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:

P07. Merging different concepts in the same class4 cases detected. Minor

A class is created whose identifier is referring to two or more different concepts. An example of this type of pitfall is to create the class "StyleAndPeriod", or "ProductOrService".

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P08. Missing annotations231 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 properties9 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 relationships52 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:

P19. Swapping intersection and union1 case detected. Critical

The ranges and/or domains of the properties (relationships and attributes) are defined by intersecting several classes in cases in which the ranges and/or domains should be the union of such classes. An example of this type of pitfall is to create the relationship "takesPlaceIn" with domain "OlympicGames" and with range the intersection of the classes "City" and "Nation". Another example can be to create the attribute "Name" for the classes "City" and "Drink" and to define its domain as the intersection of both classes. This pitfall is related to the common error that appears when defining ranges and domains described in [3] and also related to the guidelines for defining these elements provided in [2].

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P21. Using a miscellaneous class2 cases detected. Minor

To create in a hierarchy a class that contains the instances that do not belong to the sibling classes instead of classifying such instances as instances of the class in the upper level of the hierarchy. This class is normally named "Other" or "Miscellaneous". An example of this type of pitfall is to create the class "HydrographicalResource", and the subclasses "Stream", "Waterfall", etc., and also the subclass "OtherRiverElement".

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 classes3 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 label1 case 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:

P40. Namespace hijacking10 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: