Title

URI

http://w3id.org/onto4drone

Version

version 1.0.1 This version includes two extra data properties whose domain is the class DroneCarryingEquipment, three extra data properties whose domain is the class Record, one data properties whose domain is the class EntityOfInterest and two data properties whose domain is the class RegionOfInterest. Regarding the object properties two inverse object properties (has occured event" and "is produced by") and one more object property ("has interest") have been added. Furthremore, axioms have been added to the classes Record, Recording Position, and Constant Recording Position. Additionally, the class EntityOfInterest has been moved under the DUL general class Entity, while the data property "has time" has been removed as well. Finally some changes/additions which have been conducted to the domains and/or ranges of the data properties hasAltittude, TimeEnd, TimeStart, and has interval date have been removed as well. Regarding individuals, there have been added all the individuals presented in the example of the knowledge graph designed by the group (https://arrows.app/#/googledrive/ids=1f-NEXdFHa0bSXGaBI6MoCpLdOyLtFXP2).

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.

Congratulations! OOPS did not find a single pitfall

References:

• [1] Aguado-De Cea, G., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Poveda-Villalón, M., and Giraldo-Pasmin, O.X. (2015). Lexicalizing Ontologies: The issues behind the labels. In Multimodal communication in the 21st century: Professional and academic challenges. 33rd Conference of the Spanish Association of Applied Linguistics (AESLA), XXXIII AESLA.
• [2] Noy, N. F., McGuinness, D. L., et al. (2001). Ontology development 101: A guide to creating your first ontology.
• [3] Gómez-Pérez, A. (1999). Evaluation of Taxonomic Knowledge in Ontologies and Knowledge Bases. Proceedings of the Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop. Alberta, Canada.
• [4] Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Vila Suero, D., Villazón-Terrazas, B., Dunsire, G., Escolano Rodríguez, E., Gómez-Pérez, A. (2011). Style guidelines for naming and labeling ontologies in the multilingual web.
• [5] Vrandecic, D. (2010). Ontology Evaluation. PhD thesis.
• [6] Gómez-Pérez, A. (2004). Ontology evaluation. In Handbook on ontologies, pages 251-273. Springer.
• [7] Rector, A., Drummond, N., Horridge, M., Rogers, J., Knublauch, H., Stevens, R., Wang, H., and Wroe, C. (2004). Owl pizzas: Practical experience of teaching owl-dl: Common errors & common patterns. In Engineering Knowledge in the Age of the Semantic Web, pages 63-81. Springer.
• [8] Hogan, A., Harth, A., Passant, A., Decker, S., and Polleres, A. (2010). Weaving the pedantic web. In Proceedings of the WWW2010 Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, LDOW 2010, Raleigh, USA, April 27, 2010.
• [9] Archer, P., Goedertier, S., and Loutas, N. (2012). D7. 1.3-study on persistent URIs, with identification of best practices and recommendations on the topic for the Mss and the EC. PwC EU Services.
• [10] Bernes-Lee Tim. (2006). “Linked Data - Design issues”. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html
• [11] Heath, T. and Bizer, C. (2011). Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space. Morgan & Claypool, 1st edition.
• [12] Vatant, B. (2012). Is your linked data vocabulary 5-star?. http://bvatant.blogspot.fr/2012/02/is-your-linked-data-vocabulary-5-star_9588.html