Re: Do we want to capitalize datatypes such as hydra:rfc6570Template? (ISSUE-17)

Hi Markus,

Looking at the XML Schema built-in datatypes [1] there are a few exceptions to
the initial lowercase rule like xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:Name and xsd:NCName.
No strong preference from me, but whatever is decided *should* be applied
consistently.

Would say hydra:RFC6570Template is also a viable option in this case.

One comment is that the Schema.org datatypes are all classes and following
'normal' naming conventions applied there have initial caps.
Side note is as I read it are all of these stated to be a subclass of the
schema:Datatype class, which would imply the value "true" has type
schema:Datatype which seems a bit strange, would  make more sense to me for
schema:Datatype to be a class of datatypes (i.e. schema:Boolean is a
schema:Datatype).

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#xsd-datatypes

Regards,

John Walker
Principal Consultant & co-founder
Semaku B.V.
SFJ 4.009, Torenallee 20, 5617 BC Eindhoven
Mobile: +31 6 475 22030
Email: john.walker@semaku.com
Skype: jaw111

KvK: 58031405
BTW: NL852842156B01
IBAN: NL94 INGB 0008 3219 95


> On January 5, 2015 at 9:43 PM Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> I think we actually never discussed the capitalization of datatypes such as
> hydra:rfc6570Template. Should we keep it in lowercase or capitalize it as we
> do with classes, i.e., call it hydra:Rfc6570Template? *Most* XSD datatypes are
> lowercase, Schema.org's are all uppercase as are rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral.
>
> Thoughts? Preferences?
>
>