W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org > March 2015

Re: Value type constraints

From: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 07:49:52 +1000
Message-ID: <55187380.1050702@topquadrant.com>
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".


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:18 UTC