Follow me on twitter
Facebook
Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 : More than just timestamping the Web
May 14th, 2009
I don’t like the terms Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 for a number of different reasons. First of all, while Web 2.0 is a widely used term, you would be surprised by the number of different answers you would receive by asking 15 different persons: “What does Web 2.0 mean?” or “What is Web 2.0?”. This simply means that everybody has a different perception of what Web 2.0 represent and this is why I don’t like the term: no one really agree on a definition. Of course we can go with the Wikipedia’s definition that I personally like, but you can be sure that not everyone agree.
“Web 2.0” refers to a perceived second generation of web development and design, that facilitates communication, secure information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web.
Then, I’ve always seen the Web as a platform evolving every minute to become smarter and more useful to the users. The way we use the Web changes every day and that’s why the term Web 2.0 was only a buzz word I avoided to use until recently. I refused to timestamp the Web.
Web 3.0
This morning, I read a very interesting article on ReadWriteWeb called Understanding the New Web Era: Web 3.0, Linked Data, Semantic Web which is basically a review of a 3 parts article by Greg Boutin on Web 3.0. It’s a very good read and I suggest you have a look if you’d like to learn more about what’s coming on the Web and all the challenges ahead. My first reaction to this “Web 3.0 article” was this (comment I posted):
Web 3.0. On top of the fact that I hate most definitions of the Web (including Web 2.0), We’re still trying to explain to businesses what Web 2.0 mean and how it can benefit them. I can only imagine the confusion when we’ll bring Web 3.0.
I understand the human need for formal definitions and everything, but I think there’s just one version of the Web, evolving every minute to become smarter and more useful.
Great article though on what’s coming and the challenges ahead. I don’t have much time at the moment to go through every reference in the article, but I will.
A collective Web agenda
That was it, classic reaction from me about Web 2.0/3.0. Then, Greg answered with this great comment:
Although the debate is welcome, I’m not sure how much value there is in disputing the term web 3.0, just like there was in disputing web 2.0. I agree it sounds a little tired, as I mentioned in my post, but I think there is value in trying to federate a collective web agenda around a term that has the merit of being integrative and breaking technological silos, to try and reassemble them around consumer needs.
I am aware there is at least a perceived difference of perspective and culture between the technology and business communities on this, and in fact trashing the terms Web x.0 has become a unifying force in some corners of the tech community (or perhaps more than “corners”, I don’t really know). But again, I think that blanket terms like web 3.0 are good at taking us beyond the technologies and help us reflect on what it all means for the user. It lets us gather at the web 3.0 conference which also helps break silos and incorporate new elements into the fabric of the semantic web.
Asking us to drop the term in favor of more “precise” definitions, with “precise” often defined as “narrower or more technical” feels to me a little aristocratic. So, while not being in love with the web 3.0 expression – I agree we could try and improve on it for the next version – I do see value in it and understand why RWW embraced it. It’s out there and we talk about it, so as tech commenters it’s normal that they tackle it.
The part that really got my attention was:
I think there is value in trying to federate a collective web agenda around a term that has the merit of being integrative and breaking technological silos, to try and reassemble them around consumer needs.
It’s about the businesses
Bringing everyone around a single term is exactly the benefit of using terms like Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 even if you don’t agree on the formal definition. It’s a buzzword yes, but a buzzword most people “understand” and it does break the technological silos. I see it as some sort of sales term and I explained it in my answer:
Greg, I agree with you on that. While I’m not in love with the terms Web 2.0 & Web 3.0, I think that from a business point of view it is important to set markers in time (Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0) at specific moments where big shifts on the Web occurred.
Agreeing on a single term and promoting a more or less similar definition makes it easier for people outside of this Web 2.0/3.0 world to understand.
Honestly, I think it is more a “sales” term and a term everyone can understand and talk about. Most importantly, a term business owners can understand and then challenge their team on: “Is our business Web 2.0/3.0″?, even if they don’t necessarily understand everything Web 2.0/3.0 implies.
Then, this is where as consultants/advisers we become important: “How can you make my business Web 3.0?”
Final note, even though I don’t like the terms, I understand the benefits of gathering around the Web 2.0/3.0 terms. I use the term Web 2.0 everyday, it’s a term most people “understand”.
Whatever your position on the subject, I think using terms like Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 is a positive thing. Setting markers in time at specific moments where big shifts occurred on the Web doesn’t help the geeks we are, it helps customers and businesses. If you are a consultant, this is also a sales term as I stated in my comment. After thinking about it properly, it’s a good thing. But I still don’t like to timestamp the Web.
8 Responses to “Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 : More than just timestamping the Web”
What do you think?
Subscribe : A new sketch every morning
Receive this blog in your inbox by entering your email address:
[...] the rest here: Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 : More than just timestamping the Web Bookmark [...]
I just came across this post and see lot of information which is good and useful to me.
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your comments. I'm impressed by your ability to integrate new arguments and act on those even when it includes altering your initial views a little. That's pretty rare and goes very much to your credit, as most people will stand by their initial position even when there is little reason to do so. So, kuddos on that.
In a older post at http://www.semanticsincorporated.com/2008/10/the-... I had mentioned that Web 3.0 is a marketing concept, and I completely agree with you that it's a sales term. A number of companies contact me to ask "how they can benefit from the Web 3.0". It also sound a little less scary than "semantic web", which really sounds a bit more technology-focused. As we both pointed out, and it's my turn to revise my earlier opinion on this a little as well, it's not *just* a sales or marketing term, it's also a great community-building concept.
In that respect, it's interesting and saddening that Wikipedia has recently removed the entry for Web 3.0. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?searc... It returns an "no found" result.
With my apologies for the english mistakes and typos in my comments… I ought to get some rest!
No problems Greg.
Thanks for your very interesting comment.
You know, integrating new arguments and alter my initial views are things I do everyday. To me, a good idea is a good idea and if you have enough good arguments to convince me of your point of view, I'm always opened to change my mind. I don't debate over stuff I haven't really studied in details, I think it kills credibility.
I am surprised to see Wikipedia removed the Web 3.0 article honestly. Would have been a very good opportunity for the community to work on something "official".
Yes, my guess is that Wikipedia is going to reverse their decision soon.
Yes. Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 is all about business. Surely Web 3.0 will be advance like Web 2.0. Nice post indeed. Thanks
I am still waiting for web 3.0
want to see what changes it makes.