Is "Contact Point" badly defined?

[Kurt Bollacker]

Looking at the v0.9 draft schema, Contact Point is given as a subtype
of Structured Value, yet it is described as "A contact point—for
example, a Customer Complaints department." I can't see how a
customer complaints department can be intrinsically an instance of
Structured Value. Also, Contact Point has the awkward property
"contactType", with examples of "person" and "organization". Thinking
of a Contact Point as intrinsically a person or organization makes
much more sense.

Furthermore, the type Postal Address is given as a subtype of Contact
Point. A physical address is a very different thing than a customer
complaints department (which might even be internet based, without a
postal address).

So I think Contact Point is broken. I propose the following changes:

1. Postal Address is no longer a subtype of Contact Point and becomes
a direct subtype of Structured Value
2. Contact Point gains the "address" property with Postal Address as
its range.
3. Contact Point is no longer a subtype of Structured Value and
becomes subtypes of Person and Organization

Opinions?

[Kurt Bollacker]