- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:46:29 +0100
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
- Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
So maybe sh:class is the least bad after all? Richard > On 29 Mar 2015, at 22:49, Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com> wrote: > > 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 22:46:54 UTC