In just about every case when I have tried to explain to people that they need this module, it has lead to mass confusion and misunderstanding. I think we really need to take a look at changing the module namespace for Drupal 7 back to Most of the people in the RDF BoF at DrupalCon agreed with this.

Just today, I received:

For example you say,
1. download but it already part of D7 core. Why should I download it?

This confusion is frustrating to no end. In some cases, people get quite snippy with me when I try to explain that they need this project.

I think we need to nip it in the bud and move the project. This would also fix the rather critical bug regarding updates.


scor’s picture

Definitely agree with this. Had the same type of confusion happening at the Boston Drupal meetup. There is also a core issue where you cannot download the contrib RDF module: #1087266: Update module cannot handle projects having the same name as a core module. Let's agree on a namespace and go ahead with that.

Here are my suggestions, with some attempt at explaining the project, just to see how it sounds (test it out loud too!). It's best to look at what the module currently provides to decide: RDF API includes several RDF APIs which extend the core RDF module RDF Library it's not really a library since it has quite a lot of functionalities as well (evoc, RDF UI) RDF extensions which adds extra RDF support to Drupal 7. One advantage is that RDFx is quite distinct from a lot of the other names around, such as rdflib which is also a library in python.

Based on the fact that the RDF contrib project provides more than just APIs, RDFx makes more sense to me.

Do people not like RDFx and have better suggestions?

It's a discussion we will definitely have tomorrow during the code sprint in Cambridge.

linclark’s picture

+1 for RDFx.

no2e’s picture

For me as a non-programmer, the project names rdfapi and rdflib sound like some modules only useful for other developers. So I'd go with rdfx.

milesw’s picture

+1 for RDFx. It will be great to see the project living in its own space.

scor’s picture

Status: Active » Fixed

The RDF in contrib project for Drupal 7 has now a new home:

I've pushed the 7.x-2.x branch in the new rdfx project and created the same releases as on the old project.

Leaving this issue in the rdf project for the records. We'll have to move all the other D7 issues to rdfx though.

scor’s picture

oh, and don't forget to update your git clone:
git remote set-url origin

milesw’s picture

Ahhh, much better. Good call on the big green notices on each project page. Thanks for the Git tip too!

milesw’s picture

Project: Resource Description Framework (RDF) » RDF Extensions

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

diqidoq’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
Status: Closed (fixed) » Active

Sorry to reopen this old issue but I have to complain, that there is still something confusing, caused by the first words in the project page saying:

RDF Extensions is the new home of the RDF project in contrib for Drupal 7...

I get asked very often if it means, that they have to replace the D7 core RDF module with this one and don't read any further about the module paths. Especially because module paths can be very different. I assume this confusion is caused by many other cases, when some features, which didn't made it into core before feature freeze, will get into a contrib project.

Even the next paragraph doesn't make it clearer:

Drupal 7 core includes an RDF module which outputs RDFa.

Now the confusion ist complete. The user thinks: Wait, so the core module has a feature limit and we need to exchange them with the more advanced RDFx, which didn't made it into core?

My suggestion is to change the first lines in the project page to:

RDFx (RDF Extensions) is the new namespace of the former badly named contrib module RDF, which had the same name like a Drupal 7 core module named rdf, what has leaded to some confusion. RDFx extends the features of the Druapl 7 core module.

... or something similar or better formulated which makes it 100% clear.

scor’s picture

Status: Active » Closed (fixed)

Yes, I agree. I've updated the project description to address both concerns. Please reopen if it's not clear.