It is not out of the realm of possibility, but what does it matter? Are you worried that APIs would replace IFC?
Question… If one considers email or texting (SMS ro such) a replacement for ‘snail mail’, isn’t there still a need for language (e.g. English, German, French, Polish), the semiotic constructs and semantics in order to communicate, regardless of the technical method? In essence, the schema is still relevant, regardless if the information exchange is file-based or streaming, monolithic or transactional, asynchronous or synchronous.
The difference between an ‘open’ API and an ‘Open API’ is that the former is just a construct of the target vendor to enable direct connection to their system and enclosed (proprietary) data set, but possibly still heavily reliant on their product-specific semantics and constructs, available to all others (free or not), and the later a ‘universal’ system, construct, and semantic basis that any vendor could use to connect to any other vendor, provided the products have Open API compatibility. In essence, this is what the Open CDE group is working on, starting with foundations and then moving to ‘documents’. Eventually, they would be in a position to address model-based information transactions… but through utilizing a standard information schema (IFC) in one of many possible formats (e.g. JSON/XML, HDF5, STP, OWL/RDF, etc.) using RESTful, or possibly other, methods.
Thus IFC is still important, but I think the Technical Roadmap 2020-2025 lays out that to take advantage of more robust, modern methodologies of information exchange, what form it is in and how it is used will in fact change.