Re: [Specifications] Stop advocating the use of the unmaintained and not dereferencable VOID vocabulary?

### Regarding void:subset

I find this the most important one as it swill be relied on in multiple other specification as well that follow the TPF example.

I believe `dcterms:hasPart` has the same semantics and I would be in favor of that alternative. Above all, DCTerms is a well adopted vocabulary.

### Regarding void:triples

void:triples indicates an approximate count of the number of triples. Not sure what to use instead... Maybe our own LDF vocabulary?

I find this one less urgent, as it is very TPF specific.

### Other URIs used in  the ldf-server, but not in the spec

 * http://rdfs.org/ns/void#Dataset - use hydra:Collection only instead
 * http://rdfs.org/ns/void#uriLookupEndpoint - only use the hydra alternative. Duplicated information anyway

## What should change today

Proposed action: support dcterms:partOf in the spec, tell a client to look for both void:subset (deprecated) and dcterms:partOf

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by pietercolpaert
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/170#issuecomment-439872328 using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 19 November 2018 12:09:50 UTC