Measuring ontology quality using metrics is far from a trivial task – one has to pick the right metrics for the right task and then interpret these values in a meaningful way. Without help, these interpretations are often highly subjective, even for trained knowledge engineers. Quality frameworks can assist and objectify the evaluation. One of the more prominent frameworks in ontology evaluation is OQuaRE, which builds upon the SQuaRE standard for software evaluation. Not only provides it tangible metrics for assessing an ontology, but it also suggests an interpretation for these values in the form of a quality rating and links these metrics to a broader quality framework. However, during an implementation effort, the authors identified some drawbacks. In the last years, various metrics have been proposed that sometimes seem to conflict with each other or are inconclusive in their descriptions. The resources on the quality framework are distributed over web pages and papers. The following paper aims first to present the drawbacks the framework currently has. At the next step, we resolve the current heterogeneities and collect the information of the various sources. We aim to provide a one-stop information resource on OQuaRE to enable our further research and applications efforts.