- From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 07:49:52 +1000
- To: public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
I am not happy with sh:type either, and welcome better suggestions. - sh:valueType is not clear enough to me, and would only make sense if it's about both datatype and object values. - sh:objectType, while aligning with owl:ObjectProperty, is misleading because the term "object" is also used for the triple position, and then it wouldn't exclude literals either. We'd have to use sh:subjectType for inverse properties. - sh:resourceType may be misleading to those people who understand Resource to include literals. - sh:rdfType is too geeky for people who don't even know/care that RDF is the foundation of this language. What other options do we have? Once again it seems to come back to the issue that there is no accepted term for "IRI or Blank Node". Holger On 3/30/15 2:10 AM, Irene Polikoff wrote: > +1 > > On 3/29/15, 11:41 AM, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > >> I really would advise against sh:type for exactly the reason you give. > >
Received on Sunday, 29 March 2015 21:50:24 UTC