Thanks for the report, but if you read the text following the code you'll see that this is an intensional misspelling to illustrate how SHACL can be used to find typos in RDF code. Here's the text: "Validating the second node would determine that inst:Issue3 violates the constraint on values for ex:state, because ex:unsigned is not in the list of allowed values, "

Look at it closer. It's a small mistake and easy to overlook - but still - the text referring to the incorrect (misspelled) property misspells it yet another way:

The text refers to the incorrect property [used intentionally] in the code as "ex:unsigned" (just as you quoted above) while the incorrect property value listed in the code is "ex:unsinged".

@CaptSolo thanks for the clarification. I fixed the Editor's Draft: http://w3c.github.io/data-shapes/shacl/
Please review it and close this issue if the fix is OK.

Thanks - it's OK now.