How exactly is this Web 3.0? I never even really made sense of how you could call Web 2.0 "Web 2.0" when a) almost everyone who develops web 2.0 rich applications only create banners with gigantic, multicolored texts (eg. tutorials "How to make a fancy Web2.0 Logo) and b)This site uses the same technologies as web2.0 in the same ways as I've seen in other places.
We need to stop playing this game of semantics, and stop being so anxious to evolve without the real need to.
This is a great point--at what point specifically did things go from 1.0 to 2.0? Were there no 2.0 betas?
I think a lot of this might be driven by marketers/advertisers trying to sell their clients on "a new way" of selling their content. Remember when some company (Was it Slate.com?) came out with the full-page interstitial ad? That was a new way of advertising content--wouldn't you say that would have earned atleast a Web 1.1 rating?
"Web 2.0" _seems_ to be driven by sites being "interactive", I guess above and beyond just clicking around using 1.0(?) navigation. Furthermore, elements like mob behavior (Digg), social networking, RIA expereinces seem to let someone slap 2.0 on their site--not that it's wrong, but that seems to be the criteria. What else might I be missing in that list?
What would you call Hacker News? Just because it's born in the Web 2.0 "era", does it make it so?
I've always thought that 'Web 2.0' at first just meant that a site had user-generated/submitted content - so by that definition news.yc would be web 2.0 because pg does not post the stories and decide what we see.
You are right. The web is fluid and always evolving. Changing the version tag with such definiteness is the same as declaring a pile a heap...at what point does the transition take place?
"Web 2.0" is a great marketing phrase to help bring back the importance of the internet. There were no doubt a number of different ways in which the web was used, but this is not a total rehash of the web into a brand-spanking-new thing.
If anything, we need to add a new protocol to have a different web, much less the semantic web - if this vision is to be a reality. HTTP is great but in order to take advantage of the semantic web we need a protocol to address those issues and not a protocol that is decades old and designed for a fairly constrained exchange of information.
I really haven't looked deeper into it. I'm basing my statement on the notion that HTTP was invented way before the internet went mainstream and that at today's pace of technological evolution every passing year takes us exponentially further away from the original purpose of HTTP.
I would be hard pressed to believe that Tim Berners-Lee envisioned HTTP becoming as popular as it is today and thus designing for this popularity in anticipation. I would be more easily convinced that HTTP is optimal for the time and purpose for which it was designed. Like starlight, we are still within that scope of possibilities, although some VERY creative solutions are available, such as Ajax - but this just indicates to me that needs of the masses are way beyond the needs for which HTTP was originally designed.
Using this approach, it would seem perfectly logical (in my mind) that the needs of today's web be looked upon with a fresh attitude as far as what we use it for today and what we may use it for in the next 10 years. Perhaps we need applications that are capable of dynamically acquiring new protocols (this would be a nice paradigm shift enabling so many possibilities) and thus enable a new level of interaction with the web than that to which we are currently constrained. By unhinging the browser from HTTP then there is an incentive for people to develop their own protocols thus opening up the full range of possibilities for people to invent the future web, whether it be semantic or something equally fantastic.
I will state out-right that I am merely dreaming about possibilities here and that I have not really given this much thought - there are easily many more people that could approach this problem and come up with better solutions than I could; I'm just saying that the future web deserves something better than HTTP. I would also propose that perhaps the web needs to be viewed as a multi-web when considering it's role in the future.
interesting. it show entities, but does it show relationships? I kind of see that in actions, but it reminds me a lot of grammar class. That's not bad though, as the semantic web is going to have a lot of those fundamentals. Very cool stuff overall.
I think people simply have a habit of categorizing things to make them easier to understand and easier to remember. We associate many things with eras, generations, periods, dynasties, etc.
The web is always evolving; it's just easier to consider a particular time frame 'Web 1.0' and the next 'Web 2.0'. From my viewpoint, it seems as if each 'Web x.0' will/would occur after each recessionary cycle.
Then again, why try to make sense of something like this that is still so new?
If entities were ever to become something big in the web, it isn't going to be by generating random links between entities and hoping that something useful comes out of it.
If anything, someone has to see a useful link between 2 entities and build an application around it. I doubt it will ever happen the other way around.
The problem with using it for that is it doesn't seem to mark which 'entities' are more important than others. So even though it seems to be able to mark proper nouns and numbers, it doesn't differentiate between an 'entity' being the subject of an article and just being mentioned. There's probably ways to get around this(frequency counts of an entity in an article? number of google results for an entity?), but right now it doesn't seem to do that.
We need to stop playing this game of semantics, and stop being so anxious to evolve without the real need to.