I’m not sure if I understand your point. I assume open to interpretation to mean you want the user to have the flexibility to use the project as they see fit. Or do you want the name to be open to interpretation.
If it is the former, I don’t see how backlinks limits use-case flexibility. If it is the latter, I think vauge names can be confusing for new users (including me). Even though ergo does sound nice. A project of this size should have a name that clearly communicate what the software does, but also set the right expectation. E.g. any new user can very easily say what
org-ref basically does. If O-R had a wider range of core features I could see it being called ergo for sure. But it seems to me like the focus is on backlinks. Features like transclusions, header linking, etc weren’t on the roadmap the last time I check. I could be wrong, of course.
That’s my two cents anyway. I wonder if we should use some sort of poll, rendering all this just idle talk .
Edit: Looks like there is a poll!