Comments on: Web 3.0 and why we don’t need it http://joeanderson.co.uk/blog/2007/10/28/web-30-and-why-we-dont-need-it/ A blog by a Brit about Web 2.0 . Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:21:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: StarCraft 2 http://joeanderson.co.uk/blog/2007/10/28/web-30-and-why-we-dont-need-it/#comment-228141 StarCraft 2 Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:55:17 +0000 http://joeanderson.co.uk/blog/2007/10/28/web-30-and-why-we-dont-need-it/#comment-228141 Great article :) internet business people love Buzzwords. stumbled! Great article :) internet business people love Buzzwords. stumbled!

]]> By: Julia http://joeanderson.co.uk/blog/2007/10/28/web-30-and-why-we-dont-need-it/#comment-211715 Julia Wed, 31 Oct 2007 06:47:16 +0000 http://joeanderson.co.uk/blog/2007/10/28/web-30-and-why-we-dont-need-it/#comment-211715 Thinking of Web 3.0, I imagine a (nearly) complete fusion of human-beings and their devices. As you're pointing out: no difference between the online and the offline. Turning it into a horror movie: You could get virtually connected to everybody. Just scan the face with your mobile phone and you can send a message to this person; together with things like that: http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;361485560;fp;16;fpid;1 Thinking of Web 3.0, I imagine a (nearly) complete fusion of human-beings and their devices. As you’re pointing out: no difference between the online and the offline.
Turning it into a horror movie: You could get virtually connected to everybody. Just scan the face with your mobile phone and you can send a message to this person; together with things like that: http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;361485560;fp;16;fpid;1

]]> By: Nils http://joeanderson.co.uk/blog/2007/10/28/web-30-and-why-we-dont-need-it/#comment-211621 Nils Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:00:17 +0000 http://joeanderson.co.uk/blog/2007/10/28/web-30-and-why-we-dont-need-it/#comment-211621 Makes me think of this <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=T0QJmmdw3b0" rel="nofollow">video of Eric Schmidt answering that question</a>. It's funny, but it also sums up what the web could evolve into, 3.0 or not. I do hope we don't have to wait decades though. That seems rather long. Assume 2.0 developed between the dot com bubble and today... That's roughly about six years. If you look at tech developments in the past five years alone, and the rise of mobile and OS/browser independent apps, I think we'll be there sooner than we think. But yes, total online/offline integration we will have to wait a bit longer for. It is my dream though ;-) Still, I agree: even using the term loosely these days sounds pretentious. I would prefer things such as "future web" or "next web" by far. Makes me think of this video of Eric Schmidt answering that question. It’s funny, but it also sums up what the web could evolve into, 3.0 or not.

I do hope we don’t have to wait decades though. That seems rather long. Assume 2.0 developed between the dot com bubble and today… That’s roughly about six years. If you look at tech developments in the past five years alone, and the rise of mobile and OS/browser independent apps, I think we’ll be there sooner than we think.

But yes, total online/offline integration we will have to wait a bit longer for. It is my dream though ;-)

Still, I agree: even using the term loosely these days sounds pretentious. I would prefer things such as “future web” or “next web” by far.

]]> By: Joe Anderson http://joeanderson.co.uk/blog/2007/10/28/web-30-and-why-we-dont-need-it/#comment-211038 Joe Anderson Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:26:20 +0000 http://joeanderson.co.uk/blog/2007/10/28/web-30-and-why-we-dont-need-it/#comment-211038 Surely aren't semantic web, RDF and XML linked in with 2.0? When I think of 3.0... I think of Minority Report like interfaces! Surely aren’t semantic web, RDF and XML linked in with 2.0?

When I think of 3.0… I think of Minority Report like interfaces!

]]> By: devin holloway http://joeanderson.co.uk/blog/2007/10/28/web-30-and-why-we-dont-need-it/#comment-210982 devin holloway Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:05:45 +0000 http://joeanderson.co.uk/blog/2007/10/28/web-30-and-why-we-dont-need-it/#comment-210982 What is your point? Web 2.0 seems to be pretty well defined. Check out O'reilly's definition - http://tinyurl.com/y3uhod And as for Web 3.0, how can you critique this topic and make no mention of the semantic web, RDF, XML, OWL, and so on? "Lets not talk about Web 3.0 until we iron the bugs out of Web 2.0 and perfect it." Oh, I don't know, why don't we just say something like 'let's not talk about alternatives to fossil fuels until we perfect their uses?' Sarcasm aside, your premise needs some checking. Otherwise, thank you for posting something interesting. Even though I disagree with you, you have a right to your opinion. Cheers - What is your point? Web 2.0 seems to be pretty well defined. Check out O’reilly’s definition - http://tinyurl.com/y3uhod

And as for Web 3.0, how can you critique this topic and make no mention of the semantic web, RDF, XML, OWL, and so on?

“Lets not talk about Web 3.0 until we iron the bugs out of Web 2.0 and perfect it.”

Oh, I don’t know, why don’t we just say something like ‘let’s not talk about alternatives to fossil fuels until we perfect their uses?’

Sarcasm aside, your premise needs some checking.

Otherwise, thank you for posting something interesting. Even though I disagree with you, you have a right to your opinion.

Cheers -

]]>