Relationship of dcat:Dataset and void:Dataset

Hello,

Following discussion with colleagues, I would like to ask for opinions on semantics of dcat:Dataset and void:Dataset.

We have two points of view.

First, the RDF version of a dcat:Dataset is a dcat:distribution of that dataset and is itself a void:Dataset.
That could be represented as follows:

<my-dataset> a dcat:Dataset ;
  dcat:distribution <my-rdf-dataset> ;
  .
<my-rdf-dataset> a dcat:Distribution , void:Dataset ;
  void:sparqlEndpoint <sparql> ;
 void:dataDump <my-dataset.rdf>, <my-dataset.ttl> ;
  .

Secondly that a dcat:Dataset that is available as RDF (and possibly other forms) is also a void:Dataset.
Or to put it another way: void:Dataset rdfs:subClassOf dcat:Dataset.
That could be represented as follows:

<my-dataset> a dcat:Dataset, void:Dataset ;
  dcat:distribution <my-sparql-distribution>, <my-rdfxml-distribution>, <my-turtle-distribution>;
  void:sparqlEndpoint <sparql> ;
  void:dataDump <my-dataset.rdf>, <my-dataset.ttl> ;
  .
<my-sparql-distribution> a dcat:Distribution ;
  dcat:accessURL <sparql> ;
  .
<my-rdfxml-distribution> a dcat:Distribution ;
  dcat:downloadURL <my-dataset.rdf> ;
  dcat:mediaType "application/rdf+xml"
  .
<my-turtle-distribution> a dcat:Distribution ;
  dcat:downloadURL <my-dataset.ttl> ;
  dcat:mediaType "text/turtle"
  .

I'm trying to keep an open mind, but leaning towards the second method as thinking of the SPARQL endpoint, dumps and crawlable linked data (plus other forms such as an API or WFS endpoint) as different distributions of the same dataset seems to fit better with the spirit of DCAT (at least to my interpretation of the recommendation).

Thoughts welcome!

Regards,
John