Hacker News Reader

Comment by bawolff | Hacker News Reader

Funnily enough, the why semantic web is good section is the section that actually identifies why it failed.

We are going to have an ultra flexible data model that everyone can just participate in?

That never works. Protocols work by restricting possibilities not allowing everything. The more possibilities you allow, the more room for subtle incompatibilities and the more effort you have to spend massaging everything into compatibility.

View on HN

That's discussed in the article though. The open world assumption is untenable. Having shareable interoperable schemata that can refer to each-other safely would be a god send however. And that's what is currently very hard but needn't be.

What is "unsafe, untenable or hard" about embedding some JSON-LD (which is just some JSON metadata, transformed using a small JS library), like I did here: https://twitter.com/conzept__/status/1552719001826074625

Whether you trust the URIs or the data that was placed there is not a problem for the semantic web. The fact that you _can_ state these things and relate to other resources and concepts on the web is already wonderful and useful in itself. Google is reading this metadata and relating it to their trust/ranking-graph. The semantic web 'community' could do the same later also, in a more decentralized way (blockhain web IDs perhaps?). For now it all works fine.

people should use something like json-schema to publish their structure. this doesn't solve the root denotation problem, but it would help a lot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com