Re: Suggestion: sh:nodeType -> sh:nodeKind

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:31 AM, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
wrote:

>  It was good to see some efforts towards test cases. Before we can
> meaningfully do this, we need to agree on the high-level vocabulary to be
> used within those test cases.
>

+1

>
> As I start to look into filling an unfinished piece in my spec
> (sh:valueType), I noticed that we should rename sh:nodeType so that it
> doesn't conflict with the term "type" in the possible variations of
> sh:valueType, sh:datatype etc. Looking at the RDF spec [1], what we call
> the node types are introduced as:
>
> "There can be three kinds of nodes
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-node> in an RDF graph
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-rdf-graph>: IRIs
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-iri>, literals
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-literal>, and blank nodes
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#dfn-blank-node>."
>
> Question: Does anyone object to renaming sh:nodeType to sh:nodeKind? Any
> better proposals?
>

I have no objection to renaming them or to keep the name.

I have updated this wiki page to reflect those changes:

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Shacl-language#Structural_Definitions

And added a reference to your new name proposal here:

https://www.w3.org/2014/data-shapes/wiki/Shacl-language#NodeType

Of course, being the page a wiki, it would be great if more people
contribute there. It may be a good place to keep track and discuss the
different high level language features and their associated URIs.

Best regards, Jose Labra