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 08:50:12 +1000
Message-ID: <551881A4.4080100@topquadrant.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: "public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org" <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
On 3/30/2015 8:46, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> So maybe sh:class is the least bad after all?

I'd be OK with sh:class.

Holger


>
> 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 22:51:28 UTC

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