Thanks for summarizing this. Two suggestions:
1. Instead of samePropertyAs: rdf:type, use owl:equivalentProperty if you want to express how the additional type information can be mapped into an RDF world.
2. Add a link to the thread in the W3C archive so that the full details of the discussions are easy to reach:
By the way, the original proposal now being favored was already described in my post
and presented at the schema.org Workshop back in September 2011 (slide 16):
On Jun 19, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:šThanks everyone. Lots of mail!
šI have tried to make a brief summary of some of the points in the Web
šSchemas wiki, just a sketch of individual positions really rather than
ša summary of the whole debate. I also started there to write up
šdetails of a concrete proposal for 'additionalType'.
šSince nobody has volunteered to lead an effort to get Microdata syntax
šchanged to support multiple types from different vocabularies, and on
šbalance after reading thru all the debate, I think we should go for
šthe new property approach.
šI'd like to make sure that we capture all the concerns people have in
šthe Wiki and in the resulting property definition, and to give some
šthought to how validators and checkers ought to behave.
šPeter, Egor, others, ... can you live with a new property here? (one
šof 'additionalType' or 'type') Any preferences on name?
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
www: ššššhttp://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/