Geonames


Title
Geonames
URI
http://www.geonames.org/ontology
Description
The Geonames ontologies provides elements of description for geographical features, in particular those defined in the geonames.org data base
License
CC-BY 3.0
Languages
Swedish, Russian, Bulgarian, Norwegian, English
Ontology languages
OWL
Ontology format
RDF/XML
Issued
2006-10-14
Last modified
2012-10-29
Version
3.1
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.

P08. Missing annotations21 cases detected. Minor

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 properties13 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 properties1 case 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 attibutes could be defined as equivalent:

P13. Missing inverse relationships15 cases detected. Minor

P34. Untyped class9 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:

P35. Untyped property3 cases detected. Important

A resource is used as a property, e.g. appearing as the subject or object of an "rdfs:subPropertyOf" statement, without having been declared as a "rdf:Property" or some subclass of it.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P40. Namespace hijacking1 case 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: