About the Rich Field Types of the “Table Schema specification v1.0.0”. There are a rdfType field descriptor, that must be the a RDF Class. It is not enough when we are using a relevant vocabularies, as Schema.org or Wikidata, that predicts class+property to get semantics…
Examples of fields and its descripttions:
-
person.csvtable, columnname: the file itself has the semantic of the class Person, so we can underline thatnameis a person’s name, but ideal is to use explicit reference, so a rdfType at resource. The fieldnamein the context of Person class is exactly the property name - Schema.org Property , so ideal is to assingn a property not only classes. -
organization.csvtable, columnname: … same idea tham Person, see Organization - Schema.org Type. -
member.csvtable, columnsnameandmemberOf: thenamefield is the Person’s name, thememberOffield is the company’s department name. -
… more examples at this datapackage.json, see url, about, etc.
Summarizing, it is a proposal to,
-
add an optional rdfType in the resourse level, to be used as “default class” of all fields that has no local rdfType.
It is like to use the Microdata’s itemscope/itemtype to define a context to many fields. -
add an optional rdfType-prop (or rdfProp) for property references in fields (or define the field value as a property).
NOTE: when a field use both, rdfType and rdfType-prop, it is an usual specialization of rdfType (the class), as Schema.org do. When using only rdfType-prop, is the “usual meaning”, as about - Schema.org Property or url - Schema.org Property that not need a class to contextualize it.