:Work dc:creator :Agent
:Agent rdf:type :Creator

The first statement says that a specific agent (:Agent) has created (dc:creator) a specific work (:Work). The second statement says that :Agent is a creator (:Creator). In the first dc:creator is a property while in the second :Creator is a class. You could define that the one implies the other, but you still need two different concepts because classes and properties are disjoint (at least in OWL – I am not sure about plain RDF). In Notation3 the implications may be written as:

@forAll X1, X2. { X1 dc:creator X2 } => { X2 a _:Creator }.
@forAll Y1. { Y1 a _:Creator } => { @forSome Y2. Y2 dc:creator Y1 }.

If you define two URIs for class and property of the same concept (the concept of a creator and creating something) then the two things are tightly bound together: Everyone who ever created something is a creator, and to be a creator you must have created something. This logic rule sounds rather rude if you apply it to other concepts like to lie and to be a liar or to sing and to be a singer. Think about it!

Beside the lack of fuzzy logic on the Semantic Web I miss an easy way to do “reification” (there is another concept called “reification” in RDF but I have never seen it in the wild) or “objectification”: You cannot easily convert between classes and properties. In a closed ontology this is less a problem because you can just decide whether to use a class or a property. But the Semantic Web is about sharing and combining data! What if Ontology A has defined a “Singer” class and Ontology B defined a “sings” property which refer to the same real-world concept?

Other data modeling languages (more or less) support objectification. Terry Halpin, the creator and evangelist of Object-Role Modeling (ORM) wrote a detailed paper about objectification in ORM whithout missing to mention the underlying philosophical questions. My (doubtful)
philosophic intuition makes me think that properties are more problematic then classes because the latter can easily be modeled as sets. I think the need for objectification and to bring together classes and properties with similar meaning will increase, the more “semantic” data we work with. In many natural languages you can use a verb or adjective as noun by nominalization. The meaning may slightly change but it is still very useful for communication. Maybe we should more rely on natural language instead of dreaming of defining without ambiguity?