[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".