{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ahmad88me/target/issues/139","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ahmad88me/target/issues/139/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ahmad88me/target/issues/139/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/ahmad88me/target/issues/139/events","html_url":"https://github.com/ahmad88me/target/issues/139","id":67169677,"number":139,"title":"OOPS","user":{"login":"AutonUser","id":11507979,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/11507979?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/AutonUser","html_url":"https://github.com/AutonUser","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AutonUser/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AutonUser/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AutonUser/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AutonUser/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AutonUser/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AutonUser/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AutonUser/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AutonUser/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/AutonUser/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2015-04-08T16:36:16Z","updated_at":"2015-04-08T16:36:16Z","closed_at":null,"body":"hasName: \"Missing inverse relationships\"\nhasCode: \"P13\"\nhasDescription: \"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\\\".\"\nhasNumberAffectedElements: \"10\"\nhasImportanceLevel: \"Minor\"\ntype: <http://www.oeg-upm.net/oops#pitfall>\n====================\nhasName: \"Missing annotations\"\nhasCode: \"P08\"\nhasDescription: \"Ontology terms lack annotations properties. This kind of properties improves the ontology understanding and usability from a user point of view.\"\nhasNumberAffectedElements: \"23\"\nhasImportanceLevel: \"Minor\"\ntype: <http://www.oeg-upm.net/oops#pitfall>\n====================\nhasName: \"Missing disjointness [1, 2, 3]\"\nhasCode: \"P10\"\nhasDescription: \"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.\"\nhasNumberAffectedElements: \"1\"\nhasImportanceLevel: \"Important\"\ntype: <http://www.oeg-upm.net/oops#pitfall>\n====================\nhasCode: \"SUGGESTION: symmetric or transitive object properties.\"\nhasDescription: \"The domain and range axioms are equal for each of the following object properties. Could they be symmetric or transitive?\"\nhasNumberAffectedElements: \"2\"\ntype: <http://www.oeg-upm.net/oops#suggestion>\n====================\n"}}