[jerf]

"The point here is that in semantic web there're supposed to be lots and lots of different ontologies/schemas by design, often describing the same data."

Then that is just another reason it will fail. We already have islands of data. The problem with those islands of data is not that we don't have a unified expression of the data, the problem is the meaning is isolated. The lack of a single input format is little more than annoyance and the sort of thing that tends to resolve itself over time even without a centralized consortium, because that's the easy part.

Without agreement, there is no there there, and none of the promised virtues can manifest. If what you say is the semantic web is the semantic web (which certainly doesn't match what everyone else says it is), then it is failing because it doesn't solve the right problem, though that isn't surprising because it's not solvable.

If what you describe is the semantic web, the Semantic Web is "JSON", and as solved as it ever will be.

A "knowing wizard correcting the foolish mortals" pose would be a lot more plausible if the "semantic web" had more to show for its decades, actual accomplishments even remotely in line with the promises constantly being made.

[lyxsus]

so if it tries to have a unified ontology that's why it's destined to fail, but if it's designed to working with many small ontologies… that's why it will fail! lol, but you can't have it both ways.

In SW, the "semantic" part is subjective to an interpreter. You can have different data sources, partially mapped using owl to the ontology that an interpreter (your program) understands. That allows you to integrate new data sources independently from the program if they use a known ontology seamlessly or create a mapping of a set of concepts into a known ontology (which you would have do anyway in other approach). So in theory, data consumption capabilities (and reasoning) grows as your data sources evolve.

> If what you describe is the semantic web, the Semantic Web is "JSON", and solved.

It has nothing to do with JSON, JSON-LD, XML, Turtle, N3, rdfa, microdata and etc.. RDF is a data model, but those are serialisation formats. That's another interesting point, because half of the people talk only about formats and not the full stack. That's not a reasonable discussion.

> which certainly doesn't match what everyone else says it is

oh, I know it and it's upsetting.

[pessimizer]

> if it tries to have a unified ontology that's why it's destined to fail, but if it's designed to working with many small ontologies… that's why it will fail! lol, but you can't have it both ways.

You're only supposed to say "you can have it both ways" about contradictory things. It can both be a hopeless endeavor because it is impossible to agree on ontologies and a useless endeavor if you don't agree on ontologies.

[lyxsus]

Oh, I would like to see a look on your face when just in about 100-200 years from now it will be mature enough for a "web scale".

[pessimizer]

Just 200 years around the corner.

[jrochkind1]

Maybe 300. But no longer, I'm confident! Do you want to be left out in a couple centuries? You better get on the train now.