Add some more JSON-LD related custom linter rules

[jviotti]

Signed-off-by: Juan Cruz Viotti jv@jviotti.com

[augmentcode]

🤖 Augment PR Summary

Summary: This PR expands the repository’s JSON Schema linter with additional JSON-LD-focused rules, improving detection of invalid or ambiguous x-jsonld-* annotations.

Changes:

• Registered several new JSON-LD lint rules in jsonschema.json.
• Extended jsonld-bare-override to treat x-jsonld-value and x-jsonld-constants as override-relevant keywords.
• Extended jsonld-unmarked-null to require x-jsonld-override: true when x-jsonld-value or x-jsonld-constants is explicitly set to null.
• Added jsonld-constants-iri-literal to flag IRI-looking bare strings (and certain value objects) inside x-jsonld-constants.
• Added jsonld-constants-lexical to validate lexical forms for selected typed literal constants (integer-family, decimal, boolean).
• Added jsonld-constants-reserved-type and jsonld-datatype-reserved to forbid reserved RDF datatype IRIs in inappropriate places.
• Added jsonld-value-rdf-type to prevent using rdf:type as an x-jsonld-value predicate.

Technical Notes: The new rules are written as standalone JSON Schemas (Draft 2020-12) and are composed to validate both scalar and array forms within x-jsonld-constants.

_{🤖 Was this summary useful? React with 👍 or 👎}

[augmentcode]

Review completed. 1 suggestion posted.

Comment augment review to trigger a new review at any time.

[augmentcode]

integer-datatypes includes constrained derived types like xsd:nonNegativeInteger/xsd:unsignedByte, but the current lexical check (^[+-]?[0-9]+$ + multipleOf: 1) doesn't enforce those sign/range restrictions. As a result, invalid constants like {"@type":"…#nonNegativeInteger","@value":"-1"} would still satisfy this rule.

Severity: medium

_{🤖 Was this useful? React with 👍 or 👎, or 🚀 if it prevented an incident/outage.}