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:
name: the file itself has the semantic of the class Person, so we can underline that
nameis a person’s name, but ideal is to use explicit reference, so a rdfType at resource. The field
namein the context of Person class is exactly the property https://schema.org/name , so ideal is to assingn a property not only classes.
name: … same idea tham Person, see http://schema.org/Organization.
… 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 https://schema.org/about or https://schema.org/url that not need a class to contextualize it.