pietercolpaert
commented
5 years ago 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
RubenVerborgh
tpluscode
alien-mcl
This issue was opened after na internal discussion we had between @RubenVerborgh @pietercolpaert and myself. I will copy the jist here:
Pieter Colpaert Instead of using void:subset, how about we start using dcterms:isPartOf? I’m working on a new hydra:search form that will also need to link the smaller part to its dataset description. Thought it would make sense to just use dcterms as we should deprecate void due to unmaintained and not dereferencable. The entire set-up of void was way too messy anyway. I think we should use the hydra vocabulary for describing hypermedia forms, and DCAT-AP to describe the general concept of a dataset. I don’t think VoID has any role to play any longer. I’d rather advocate DCAT-AP to extend their predicates to also e.g., contain an approximate count of triples in a distribution of a dataset
Miel Vander Sande Is void temporarily offline or is this somehow connected to the SemWeb intrest group closing down? DCAT is too shallow and with reason. So with the IG closed, you could say it's unmaintained. At least with the dissapearance of void, we'd need a new way to describe Linked Datasets. And maybe an LDF vocab can take things to a more abstract level of "Fragments" to describe any response by any (HTTP) service. a new vocabulary for Linked Datasets that works in good collaboration with DCAT-AP, and maybe that could even become the Linked Data Fragments vocabulary (ldf:)
Ruben Verborgh note the Data Exchange Working Group (DXWG) within W3C, who work on DCAT. The reasoning is that the predicate should no longer be used because VOID doesn't dereference and is unmaintained. unmaintained I don't think is a problem, since RDF Schema has been for over 10 years it's stable, that's a feature, not a bug doesn't dereference, I don't like that, but at least the URI has its semantics these are just two counterarguments in hope of finding more arguments that said, the ship has sailed and dropping void:subsetOf is likely not gonna happen for backward compatibility we might want to use another property for the future but we'll need to keep the old one around, probably indefinitely However, is dcterms alternative set in stone? because we'd at least need to see the alternatives or the full discussion to understand TPF might change, but then TPF needs to be part of the discussion
To conclude: Should we replace void:subset in search forms and by what?