Re: Value type constraints

On the general naming of all these facet properties, I'd suggest we 
either include "value" into all of them, or drop it from all. From this 
perspective, it could be either

     sh:valueDatatype, sh:valueType, sh:valueShape, sh:valueKind, 
sh:allowedValues

or

     sh:datatype, sh:type, sh:shape, sh:kind, sh:enum (?)

Since these will be repeated and hand-coded over and over again, I'd 
have a slight preference to the short names, as long as we are confident 
that people will understand their meaning. I believe they are all quite 
clear, although sh:type may be confused with rdf:type.

Holger


On 3/28/15 3:02 AM, Jose Emilio Labra Gayo wrote:
>
>     sh:literalType instead of sh:datatype - since it is about literal
>     values
>
>
> For me, both are ok.
>
> I would also like to suggest a way to constraint the language tag. For 
> example, I would like to express concepts that have rdfs:label.
> ex:shape a sh:Shape
>     sh:property [
>       sh:predicate rdfs:label ;
>       sh:valueDatatype xsd:string ;
>       sh:languageTag "es"
>     ] .
>
> I have no preference for some specific name of that property, but I 
> think there should be some way to constraint the language tag of a 
> string literal.
>
> Best regards, Jose Labra
>
>
>     On 3/27/15, 7:30 AM, "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de
>     <mailto:richard@cyganiak.de>> wrote:
>
>     >Or maybe even:
>     >
>     >    sh:type - for constraining the value¹s rdf:type
>     >    sh:datatype - for constraining the value¹s literal datatype
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> -- Jose Labra
>