Re: RDF* vs RDF vs named graphs

All --

The sum of this thread appears to be that RDF* (which 
I've been told several times here is not connected to 
RDF, except by the lexicals used in its name) is mostly
an attempt to formalize reification of that same RDF to 
which it is not connected.

I would strongly suggest that folks reshape these 
efforts toward an RDF 1.2 or 2.0 or even 3.0, or 
completely rename RDF* and its related Turtle*, SPARQL*, 
JSON-LD*, TriG*, etc. (which are likewise not related to 
RDF, Turtle, SPARQL, JSON-LD, TriG, etc.).

(A little Semantic Versioning could be brought into play,
such that if this new RDF breaks old tools, it gets to be
2.0, while if it is entirely usable with existing tools,
it could be 1.2 or 1.5 or 1.1.1)

Such maturation of version would *not* involve confusion 
in anyone's mind (I mean, why would *anyone* think RDF* 
was related to RDF?), and lend further weight to the 
gradually increasing enterprise deployment of RDF and
related technologies.

The enormous effort it takes to reinvent a wheel should
not be put forth when we have a serviceable attempt in
RDF which we can much more simply evolve to address the
concerns raised here to justify RDF* (not related to RDF)
(which notation is now, and will forever be, necessary
to avoid inevitable confusion).

Regards,

Ted