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

Re: Value type constraints

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:46:29 +0100
Message-Id: <4FBD70FB-E4C4-4E1F-A95C-4A65EEB91238@cyganiak.de>
Cc: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>
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

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