[PaulHoule]

God the word "type" is overloaded in common discourse. For a link

   ?s ?p ?o .

you could say this is a link of "type" ?p, but technically in RDF we say ?s is of type ?type if

   ?s <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> ?type .

which can be abbreviated as

   ?s a ?type .

If you have RDFS inference turned on, notably, just using ?p in a triple will imply

   ?p a rdf:Property .

In plain RDF you can say a property is of some other ?type but I think you can get in trouble with that if you want to do OWL DL inference and you might want to say something like

   ?p rdfs:subPropertyOf :SomeSpecialKindOfProperty .

[throwaway290]

if baz is meant to be relationship then I was low key wrong in my comment (I thought baz was the kind of bar, which can be untyped). But I guess the relationship must be a property at least