RDF has to be the best and saddest example of sunk cost fallacy. Instead of redirecting their efforts to a more general graph model which has actual hype and use by developers, its cultists are double downing on their abstruse technology stack, making it always more complicated while still not addressing any of its fundamental problems.
I mean, imho RDF isn't the problem. RDF itself is very simple. As you correctly point out, the stack is overcomplicated.
> Instead of redirecting their efforts to a more general graph model which has actual hype and use by developers
neo4j is basically this. You can also load RDF into neo4j using neosemantics and query it using Cypher instead of using a conventional triplestore with SPARQL, which is nice.
Nothing beats it for data exchange? You must be joking, because if it were remotely true RDF would be in wide use, which is totally not. Except a few niche domains like bioinformatics, it is not used. No killer application use it as a data format, no popular data format is based on it either. Actually I can think of a single data format based on RDF, and the only open-data I know which use it have been converted to it and was simplier to use in their original format.
And for the model: property graph. But yeah, enjoy your Stockholm syndrome with your model where reification is required to annotate an edge. Also even your nickname is an aknowledgment of RDF failure: named graphs (n-quads) were created because RDF triples aren't good enough for modeling data.
Yes, let us see how you do data interchange without global identifiers. Such as URIs, which RDF has built-in natively and property graphs do not.
You're right about bioinformatics, but lets do a quick check on http://sparql.club/ on who else is looking for RDF/SPARQL specialists. Oh look: automotive industry, finance, publishing, medical, research etc.
superior RDF triples are like martian language to millions of humans
over