The W3C Organization Ontology
- Title
- The W3C Organization Ontology
- URI
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#
- Description
- This ontology is designed to enable publication of information on organizations and organizational structures including governmental organizations. It is intended to provide a generic, reusable core ontology that can be extended or specialized for use in particular situations.
- License
- W3C
- Languages
- English, Spanish, French, Italian
- Ontology languages
- OWL
- Ontology format
- RDF/XML Turtle
- Issued
- 2010-5-28
- Last modified
- 2014-1-25
- Version
- v0.9
- 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!).
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.
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:
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:
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:
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#headOf
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#hasRegisteredSite
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#organization
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#siteAddress
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#role
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#hasPrimarySite
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#remuneration
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#location
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#reportsTo
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#classification
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#basedAt
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#memberDuring
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:
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#unitOf It is a one-word comment, maybe it is an annotation about the status
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#hasUnit It is a one-word comment, maybe it is an annotation about the status
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#headOf It is a one-word comment, maybe it is an annotation about the status
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#hasRegisteredSite It is a one-word comment, maybe it is an annotation about the status
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#hasPost It is a one-word comment, maybe it is an annotation about the status
- http://www.w3.org/ns/org#transitiveSubOrganizationOf It is a one-word comment, maybe it is an annotation about the status
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:
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:
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:
- [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).