Question:  Clarification of Popper's World 3

I am doing research that explores alternatives to the Semantic Web
idea put forward by TimBL et al.  That is; making knowledge machine-
readable/understandable through universally generalized syntax and
semantic structure.  It seems as if structural semantics are subject
to the same criticisms that Minsky levels against logical expression -
With all the years at their disposal "They have never gotten further
than saying 'John loves Mary' or 'Socrates was a mortal'.

My contention, simply put, is that if a sufficient amount of corpus
exists on universally accessible digital networks, the semantic
structuring that is essential to the semantic web idea might be
superfluous.

As a designator for this corpus of information I often use Popper's
World 3.  the world of concepts, ideas, theories, theorems, arguments
and explanations.  but my idea of World 3 would be the digital
representation of just about anything - from teenage chat about TV
shows to processual information telling windmill to change the tilt of
their blades.  Am I overstepping the boundaries of what world 3 is
intended to mean by Popper? Is it not really objective knowledge.  I
am also not sure to what extent orality (which is not part of my
corpus) is part of Popper's World 3?

Using Popper's 3 worlds has been of great pedagogical value to me in
lecturing.  I have discovered an alternative scheme proposed by
Stiegler where world 3 might map to Stiegler's techno-logical memory,
but in truth I haven't even read Stiegler's book.