pchampin
commented
3 years ago Thinking out loud:
- on the one hand, RDF* is already quite popular, as you notice, so renaming it might confuse people,
- on the other hand, RDF is also already quite confusing (SA mode or PG mode?T unique triples as per the definitions or triple instances as per the examples?), so a new name might help get rid of the confusion (once we are clear on what that* name denotes...).
If we decide to keep the original name, clearly we need to be careful to also use the "alphabetized" version "rdf-star", as is already the case in most URLs related to the project.
akuckartz
TallTed
RDF* is an unsearchable string, but searches for RDF do bring it to light occasionally.
This evening, while searching for something else, I randomly discovered the existence of the RDF# proposal, which led me to the RDF+ proposal (which is no longer at the URL the RDF# paper linked to, this link takes you into the Internet Archive for it).
(I am not prepared to do a full analysis of either of these. I do wonder whether anyone else has done some comparison, and could add such to this repo...)
Unsurprisingly, neither of the others included a searchable version of their name (e.g., rdf-hash, rdf-plus). Being unsearchable might help explain how they remain apparently unpopular. It doesn't do anything to explain the popularity of RDF*, however, which I continue to believe is in desperate need of a renaming.
(What's the next one to be,
RDF**?RDF*+#?)