Most systems don’t fail because of lack of data.
They fail because data has no meaning.
After working with real operational datasets — messy, inconsistent, and full of human decisions — I started noticing a pattern: dashboards look polished, but they often tell the wrong story. And when AI is layered on top of that, the problem only scales.
The common mistake is trying to fix chaos with visualization.
Or worse: feeding everything into an AI model and asking, “What’s going on?”
That doesn’t work.
Without a semantic layer, the system doesn’t understand what it’s looking at. It only sees strings, numbers, and aggregations. The result? Convincing charts, poor decisions.
The shift happened when I stopped treating data as tables and started treating it as meaning.
I introduced an intermediate layer between raw data and any form of intelligence — BI, automation, or AI.
This layer isn’t glamorous.
It requires domain understanding, accepting imperfect data, and realizing that naming and context matter more than metrics at the beginning.
Once that was in place, dashboards started making sense.
And AI stopped hallucinating plausible answers to poorly structured questions.
There is no intelligence without semantics.
Without it, insights are just well-presented noise.
In the next post, I’ll show how I’m implementing this layer in practice — using real-world data, not tutorial datasets.
Top comments (0)