Let’s cut to the chase. When Web 2.0 was introduced as a concept, the “marketects” jumped on it and decided that everything new that related to the web was Web 2.0. In reality the term was coined by Dale Dougherty, an O’Reilly executive, and O’Reilly used the term as a brand for a line of successful conferences – and hence it became a trademark. I’m not sure if anyone claims ownership of Web 3.0 or whether O’Reilly can darken the sky with lawyers if you arrange a Web 3.0 conference, but let’s get back to Web 2.0 rather than go into that.
The term “Web 2.0″ was invented to describe the new wave of dot com companies, from Google onwards, that became highly valuable after the dot com collapse. The majority of those companies implemented social networking applications (which could also be described as Telecomms applications) because they involved person-to-person (P2P) or group collaboration. All of this made sense until some marketects decided, on the basis of nothing at all, that rich interfaces and web services were also Web 2.0.
Web 3.0 is the Semantic Web
So let’s get it straight from the get go. If Web 3.0 means anything at all, it means the semantic web. That’s the accepted meaning. If O’Reilly wants to dispute this (legally or otherwise) then I suggest they take issue with Project10x, a company that has produced a Web 3.0 Manifesto, which speaks of nothing other than Semantic Technologies. I’ll do a Q&A on the Semantic Web in a posting in the next week or so, but right now let me just say a few simple things.
The hype phase for the semantic web is upon us. I’m now getting inundated with email about semantic this-and-that and I keep running into software that claim to be “semantic” and hence “can leap tall buildings in a single bound” Right now there is no killer application for semantic technology. Some commentators say it’s web search. I say “merde du taureau.” Semantic Technology is Artificial Intelligence. At least some people claim that it’s AI, which is normally enough to sink a technology without trace. However, it isn’t AI. Reasoning has nothing to do with it. There are some useful applications of Semantic Technology. I’ve written about one here. It has found a good area of application – advertising. The Semantic Web will not destroy Google. Facebook stands a better chance of destroying Google than the Semantic Web. If any start-up company does produce a compelling semantic search capability, Google will buy them. I read through the Web 3.0 Manifesto and, basically, I didn’t buy much of what it was saying. It was telling the usual silver-bullet-vast-ROI story. For example, let me quote:
“Semantic solutions deploy rapidly, incrementally, iteratively, and flexibly, resulting in lower exposure and faster time to value.”
What can I say? I’m glad I only read it and didn’t step in it.
The problem is that the manifesto talks in vague generalities. The reality is that semantic technologies can improve the act of filtering in many situations because they can guess at meaning better. If you build that into some systems it will make a difference, and in some contexts it may make a significant difference.
But in many situations, the current level of semantics of the system are adequate. For instance most
There are a lot of definitions of Web 3.0 going around. As can be expected, everyone defines it from their own perspective. It occurred to me that defining it from your own perspective is a pretty darned good way to describe what Web 3.0 is because it will connect information for us based on its knowledge of us. Supposedly it will allow applications to work intelligently to understand the meaning (semantics) of information and then connect us with this information based on its knowledge of us. Web 3.0 will be defined by each of us based on the main benefit it is providing us. I think of it as providing efficiency to the vast amount of information available on the internet in web pages, social networks, forums, etc. Connecting and combining information we need and want and saving us all the time we spend doing it manually.
Amiad Solomon in his keynote “Semantic Web: Making Advertising More Relevant to Consumers” at the Web 3.0 Conference & Expo provided his definition of Web 3.0. He said “I believe the simplest definition of Web 3.0 is the monetization and commercialization of Web 2.0″. This is a definition from his perspective, a definition from someone running a semantic marketing firm. Not that I don’t think advertising will quickly adapt to Web 3.0 technologies. I think se-mantic marketing has the potential to offer both the user and the advertiser needed benefits.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt defines Web 3.0 as “a different way of building applications. Applications are pieced together and are relatively small, the data is in a cloud and can run on any device, very fast and very customizable and distributed virally through social networks, email, etc.” These applications will make the user generated content that Web 2.0.created able to be personalized and managed more efficiently. Think of it as a personalized mashup of information coming from multiple places provided by applications that are intelligent enough to sift through it knowing our interests, history, etc. and presented to us in the format we prefer.
I guess we should figure out what Web 3.0 means to us and for us. It would be nice to understand Web 3.0 when it is happening, in real time, instead of not really getting it until Web 4.0 comes along and maybe not even then. Sometimes the light comes on and I think I get it but I know I am far from really getting it.
While I may soon need another source, right now I’m glad I use Twitter. Today, I saw a tweet from @ToddGilmore that mentioned Web 3.0. It was in the context of leaders learning to use social media, but that’s all I could figure out in terms of defining “Web 3.0.”
To arrive at a definition for Web 3.0, we should start by defining Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Web 1.0 was the beginning of the Internet. Examples included the type of website that one might have posted as a school assignment in the early 1990s. It typically followed the format (and included the phrase) “Hi, my name is (Your Name Here.) This is my website about Topic X” immediately followed by what was essentially an article about Topic X. The information was often accompanied by a graphic (or several) and a primitive MIDI (music) file playing in the background. I may be exaggerating a bit, but that’s the clearest example I can think of.
Web 2.0 is what a lot of people have come to use the Internet for now. It’s the interactive websites that allow us to share the information about ourselves and the world that we might have used to create Web 1.0 (or new information.) Examples include Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, YouTube, Twitter, blogs, etc.
Likewise, Web 3.0 is an extension of the interactive nature of the Internet that is developing through Web 2.0. Many experts say that it will be focused on and tailored to the individual. It will most likely have an artificial intelligence-like component now referred to as “the semantic web” with which people can search in human terms such as questions and requests as opposed to keywords, as well as a great deal of personalization and even more mobility than there is now.
New Fact: Web 3.0 is the next wave of Internet advancements. It is expected to be user-centered, more human-like, and highly portable.
What is Web 3.0 and Why Should I Care?
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010Maybe you shouldn’t.
Let’s cut to the chase. When Web 2.0 was introduced as a concept, the “marketects” jumped on it and decided that everything new that related to the web was Web 2.0. In reality the term was coined by Dale Dougherty, an O’Reilly executive, and O’Reilly used the term as a brand for a line of successful conferences – and hence it became a trademark. I’m not sure if anyone claims ownership of Web 3.0 or whether O’Reilly can darken the sky with lawyers if you arrange a Web 3.0 conference, but let’s get back to Web 2.0 rather than go into that.
The term “Web 2.0″ was invented to describe the new wave of dot com companies, from Google onwards, that became highly valuable after the dot com collapse. The majority of those companies implemented social networking applications (which could also be described as Telecomms applications) because they involved person-to-person (P2P) or group collaboration. All of this made sense until some marketects decided, on the basis of nothing at all, that rich interfaces and web services were also Web 2.0.
Web 3.0 is the Semantic Web
So let’s get it straight from the get go. If Web 3.0 means anything at all, it means the semantic web. That’s the accepted meaning. If O’Reilly wants to dispute this (legally or otherwise) then I suggest they take issue with Project10x, a company that has produced a Web 3.0 Manifesto, which speaks of nothing other than Semantic Technologies. I’ll do a Q&A on the Semantic Web in a posting in the next week or so, but right now let me just say a few simple things.
The hype phase for the semantic web is upon us. I’m now getting inundated with email about semantic this-and-that and I keep running into software that claim to be “semantic” and hence “can leap tall buildings in a single bound” Right now there is no killer application for semantic technology. Some commentators say it’s web search. I say “merde du taureau.” Semantic Technology is Artificial Intelligence. At least some people claim that it’s AI, which is normally enough to sink a technology without trace. However, it isn’t AI. Reasoning has nothing to do with it. There are some useful applications of Semantic Technology. I’ve written about one here. It has found a good area of application – advertising. The Semantic Web will not destroy Google. Facebook stands a better chance of destroying Google than the Semantic Web. If any start-up company does produce a compelling semantic search capability, Google will buy them.
I read through the Web 3.0 Manifesto and, basically, I didn’t buy much of what it was saying. It was telling the usual silver-bullet-vast-ROI story. For example, let me quote:
“Semantic solutions deploy rapidly, incrementally, iteratively, and flexibly, resulting in lower exposure and faster time to value.”
What can I say? I’m glad I only read it and didn’t step in it.
The problem is that the manifesto talks in vague generalities. The reality is that semantic technologies can improve the act of filtering in many situations because they can guess at meaning better. If you build that into some systems it will make a difference, and in some contexts it may make a significant difference.
But in many situations, the current level of semantics of the system are adequate. For instance most
Tags: Chase, Commentators, Dale Dougherty, Dot Com Collapse, Google, Group Collaboration, Hype, Killer Application, Lawyers, Manifesto, Merde, Networking Applications, New Wave, O Reilly, P2p, Person To Person, Robin Bloor, Semantic Web, Social Networking, Tall Buildings, Term Web
Posted in Internet And Businesses Online | 5 Comments »
The Definition of Web 3.0 – A Real Web 3.0 Perspective
Tuesday, August 24th, 2010There are a lot of definitions of Web 3.0 going around. As can be expected, everyone defines it from their own perspective. It occurred to me that defining it from your own perspective is a pretty darned good way to describe what Web 3.0 is because it will connect information for us based on its knowledge of us. Supposedly it will allow applications to work intelligently to understand the meaning (semantics) of information and then connect us with this information based on its knowledge of us. Web 3.0 will be defined by each of us based on the main benefit it is providing us. I think of it as providing efficiency to the vast amount of information available on the internet in web pages, social networks, forums, etc. Connecting and combining information we need and want and saving us all the time we spend doing it manually.
Amiad Solomon in his keynote “Semantic Web: Making Advertising More Relevant to Consumers” at the Web 3.0 Conference & Expo provided his definition of Web 3.0. He said “I believe the simplest definition of Web 3.0 is the monetization and commercialization of Web 2.0″. This is a definition from his perspective, a definition from someone running a semantic marketing firm. Not that I don’t think advertising will quickly adapt to Web 3.0 technologies. I think se-mantic marketing has the potential to offer both the user and the advertiser needed benefits.
Google CEO Eric Schmidt defines Web 3.0 as “a different way of building applications. Applications are pieced together and are relatively small, the data is in a cloud and can run on any device, very fast and very customizable and distributed virally through social networks, email, etc.” These applications will make the user generated content that Web 2.0.created able to be personalized and managed more efficiently. Think of it as a personalized mashup of information coming from multiple places provided by applications that are intelligent enough to sift through it knowing our interests, history, etc. and presented to us in the format we prefer.
I guess we should figure out what Web 3.0 means to us and for us. It would be nice to understand Web 3.0 when it is happening, in real time, instead of not really getting it until Web 4.0 comes along and maybe not even then. Sometimes the light comes on and I think I get it but I know I am far from really getting it.
Get your Free Web Development Quote.
Tags: Advertiser, Ceo Eric Schmidt, Commercialization, Conference Expo, Definitions, Efficiency, Eric Schmidt, Google, Internet Networks, Jebbia, Keynote, Marketing Firm, Mashup, Monetization, Perspective, Semantic Web, Semantics, Social Networks, Solomon, User Generated Content, Web Pages
Posted in Internet And Businesses Online | 2 Comments »
What is Web 3.0?
Monday, August 23rd, 2010While I may soon need another source, right now I’m glad I use Twitter. Today, I saw a tweet from @ToddGilmore that mentioned Web 3.0. It was in the context of leaders learning to use social media, but that’s all I could figure out in terms of defining “Web 3.0.”
To arrive at a definition for Web 3.0, we should start by defining Web 1.0 and Web 2.0. Web 1.0 was the beginning of the Internet. Examples included the type of website that one might have posted as a school assignment in the early 1990s. It typically followed the format (and included the phrase) “Hi, my name is (Your Name Here.) This is my website about Topic X” immediately followed by what was essentially an article about Topic X. The information was often accompanied by a graphic (or several) and a primitive MIDI (music) file playing in the background. I may be exaggerating a bit, but that’s the clearest example I can think of.
Web 2.0 is what a lot of people have come to use the Internet for now. It’s the interactive websites that allow us to share the information about ourselves and the world that we might have used to create Web 1.0 (or new information.) Examples include Facebook, MySpace, Wikipedia, YouTube, Twitter, blogs, etc.
Likewise, Web 3.0 is an extension of the interactive nature of the Internet that is developing through Web 2.0. Many experts say that it will be focused on and tailored to the individual. It will most likely have an artificial intelligence-like component now referred to as “the semantic web” with which people can search in human terms such as questions and requests as opposed to keywords, as well as a great deal of personalization and even more mobility than there is now.
New Fact: Web 3.0 is the next wave of Internet advancements. It is expected to be user-centered, more human-like, and highly portable.
Web 3.0
Tags: 1 Web, Artificial Intelligence, Beginning Of The Internet, Early 1990s, Fact Web, Interactive Nature, Interactive Websites, Internet Examples, Internet Web, Lot, Midi Music, Next Wave, People, Personalization, Phrase, School Assignment, Semantic Web, Tweet, Wikipedia
Posted in Internet And Businesses Online | 1 Comment »