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".

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.