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

Mmm, so given no alternative to `void:triples`, we are still stuck with `void`. I wouldn't feel comfortable with creating a vocabulary for only one property.

Given the software that exists and the number of years the draft specs have been around, we will also be stuck with having `void:subset` in clients and servers for the years to come.

So for me, the question is _should we additionally add `dcterms:partOf`_ to TPFs?
While I am all for that given the above argumentation, I see some issues too:
- Do we make `dcterms:partOf` a MUST and `void:subset` a SHOULD for servers?
  - If yes, then this means that all existing TPF servers are non-compliant from one day to the next. (So maybe we want a transition period.)
  - If no, then what do we do?
- I assume that clients first look for `dcterms:partOf` and then for `void:subset`? That precedence is important since they—technically–could be different.

As an aside, a question I've never fully found an answer to myself: is dcterms really the final one? Because there's also two versions of `dc`: http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/, http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.0/.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by RubenVerborgh
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/170#issuecomment-440651806 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2018 12:51:49 UTC