DUL (DOLCE+DnS Ultralite)


Title
DUL (DOLCE+DnS Ultralite)
URI
http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl
Description
It is a simplification and an improvement of some parts of DOLCE Lite-Plus library (cf. http://dolce.semanticweb.org), and Descriptions and Situations ontology (cf. http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/wiki/Ontology:DnS)Its purpose is to provide a set of upper level concepts that can be the basis for easier interoperability among many middle and lower level ontologies.
Languages
Italian, English
Ontology languages
OWL
Ontology format
RDF/XML
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 annotations16 cases detected. Minor

P11. Missing domain or range in properties3 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:

P20. Misusing ontology annotations1 case detected. Minor

The contents of some annotation properties are swapped or misused. An example of this type of pitfall is to include in the Label annotation of the class "Crossroads" the following sentence ���the place of intersection of two or more roads���; and to include in the Comment annotation the word 'Crossroads'.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P24. Using recursive definition20 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:

P25. Defining a relationship inverse to itself9 cases detected. Important

P26. Defining inverse relationships for a symmetric one9 cases detected. Important

P30. Missing equivalent classes4 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:

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://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl

References: