OntoGSN


Title
OntoGSN
URI
https://w3id.org/OntoGSN/ontology
Version
1.2

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.

OntoGSN Author's Notes

Evaluation item Note
P08. Missing annotations The following elements already have an rdfs:label annotation property, which is erroneously not detected by the automatic OOPS! evaluator in the WIDOCO wizard, but can be verified in the ontology: gsn:minCardinality, gsn:Artefact, gsn:valid, gsn:refersTo, gsn:true, gsn:final, gsn:associatedWith, gsn:toBeSupportedByContract, gsn:ArtefactReference, gsn:maxCardinality, gsn:offDiagram, gsn:multiple, gsn:attachedTo, gsn:uninstantiated, gsn:viewType, gsn:argumentType, gsn:RelationshipWithConfidence, gsn:Pattern, gsn:Relationship, gsn:contains, gsn:instantiationOf, gsn:statement, gsn:published, gsn:GSNElement.
P08. Missing annotations The following elements have an rdfs:label annotation property in their source ontologies, but as they are not fully imported (by design), this remains undetected: schema:description, schema:identifier.
P10. Missing disjointness We intentionally avoid introducing broad disjointness axioms. OntoGSN is designed to be extensible, and premature disjointness constraints can restrict reuse and alignment.
P11. Missing domain or range in properties Domain and range axioms for schema:identifier and schema:description exist in their source ontologies. These terms are reused from Schema.org to provide lightweight documentation metadata without importing the full Schema.org model.
P13. Inverse relationships not explicitly declared

We do not currently define explicit owl:inverseOf links for most object properties, as they can be easily marked via SPARQL queries. In its current version (v1.2), OntoGSN is designed to reflect the normative GSN standard v3 as closely as possible, and therefore, it does not include any additional (albeit practical) elements. As it continues to develop, we intend to introduce additional constraints and axioms, including inverse relations.

P24. Using recursive definitions

gsn:Goal and gsn:Module are intentionally defined to allow nested, repeatable patterns in GSN argument structures (e.g., goals supported by sub-goals or modular decomposition). As such, they appear “recursive” in the OOPS! validator; it is currently unclear which practice should take precedence.

P30. Equivalent classes not explicitly declared

OOPS! suggests declaring equivalence between gsn:Argument and rdf:Statement. However, although some intersection may exist (e.g., both are containers of elements), these concepts are not equivalent.

P34. Untyped class

SWRL terms (e.g., swrl:Imp, swrl:Variable) are automatically imported by the Protege plugins. Therefore, the source of this “untyped” evaluation is the implementation of the plugin. We do not make any adjustments to SWRL imports, to ensure the rules function as intended.

Other

Other points from previous OOPS! evaluations have been addressed in the previous and current version (v1.2) of OntoGSN. These points are not included in this document.

Evaluation results

P08. Missing annotations26 cases detected. Minor

This pitfall consists in creating an ontology element and failing to provide human readable annotations attached to it. Consequently, ontology elements lack annotation properties that label them (e.g. rdfs:label, lemon:LexicalEntry, skos:prefLabel or skos:altLabel) or that define them (e.g. rdfs:comment or dc:description). This pitfall is related to the guidelines provided in [5].

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P10. Missing disjointness ontology *Important

The ontology lacks disjoint axioms between classes or between properties that should be defined as disjoint. This pitfall is related with the guidelines provided in [6], [2] and [7].

*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements

P11. Missing domain or range in properties2 cases detected. Important

Object and/or datatype properties without domain or range (or none of them) are included in the ontology.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P13. Inverse relationships not explicitly declared9 cases detected. Minor

P24. Using recursive definitions2 cases detected. Important

An ontology element (a class, an object property or a datatype property) is used in its own definition. Some examples of this would be: (a) the definition of a class as the enumeration of several classes including itself; (b) the appearance of a class within its owl:equivalentClass or rdfs:subClassOf axioms; (c) the appearance of an object property in its rdfs:domain or range rdfs:range definitions; or (d) the appearance of a datatype property in its rdfs:domain definition.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P30. Equivalent classes not explicitly declared1 case detected. Important

This pitfall consists in missing the definition of equivalent classes (owl:equivalentClass) in case of duplicated concepts. When an ontology reuses terms from other ontologies, classes that have the same meaning should be defined as equivalent in order to benefit the interoperability between both ontologies.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

P34. Untyped class7 cases detected. Important

References: