Yes and no.<p>If the "semantic web" is dead it is that people are sick of updating standards. For instance, we know now that we should have SHACL before we had OWL (forgot the old "garbage in garbage out" thing) but it is too late. Probably the only semantic web "standard" that realizes that RDF can do everything JSON can do is the XMP metadata standard that Adobe has pushed. (Somehow the librarians who made Dublin Core didn't seem to think it mattered what order you listed the authors of a book in -- but the one guy Adobe had thinking about it did.)<p>One strange thing that turned up with the semweb for instance is that maybe 80% of the time people use an ordered list in JSON they don't really care about the order -- representing facts with set semantics actually works most of the time but unfortunately when you do 80% of the work to get to an MVP it is still not viable.<p>People at this point might be vaugely aware that SPARQL would be a lot more useful if they added "object-relational" features similar to N1QL but the standards fatigue is too set in. (Eg. you should be able to write queries that know about ordered lists)<p>The Object Management Group has long been following a path which is parallel to the semantic web. For instance, if you have machine readable API schemas (eg. represent the semantics of the API) you could have API clients that "code themselves". Thus there really is no contradiction between APIs and the "semantic web".