freelance at freelance
22 February 2007 10:09am
Hi,This is my first post so be gentle. Also, I'm not very technically-minded. But I have been researching the (dreaded) Web 3.0 concept and it strikes me that people only talk about it in terms of a) the nuts and bolts of systems to make it work and b) a consumer context. I am looking for thoughts and material on how it will effect the business-to-business community, particularly marketing services suppliers. Will there be a generation of businesses offering 'mainstream' services to clients, but via ultra-sophisticated websites? I know a couple, but need more insights from experts.
Managing Director at True Clarity
23 February 2007 07:27am
Web 3.0, now that's ambitious most businesses don't have a clue about blogs let alone a truely semantic web (if that's what you're meaning by Web 3.0?).
Personally I'd imagine the effect on business of truly seemless transfer of data and functionality across the semantic web would be the most exiting aspect.
First ERP was going to revolutiononise B2B, then XML, then Web Services and the service oriented archiectures that come with it. It will only be once we have standard ways for communicating all information that effect will really take effect.
All that said I'm reading a lot about how XML is dead as a standard being replaced by new more lightweight standards (like JSON) so I fear Web 3.0 is a long, long way off.
If you'd like some background on Web 2.0, something I think is being under used in the B2B market then we have a short whitepaper outlining 5 scenarios where Web 2.0 thinking can benefit your business now.
Andrew DaviesTrue Clarity
Retired at Retired
26 February 2007 17:54pm
Is it just me, but what is this web 2.0 3.0 thing about?
Software is released with version numbers that contain dots. Version 0.x normally beta, 1.0 the first release. Then the small number changes as small upgrades are made, 1.1, 1.2 etc. The big number changes when a really big step-change in function is made (and some marketeer decides he/she can stiff customers for some more money for an upgrade - thus the somewhat miniscule incremental changes in word for windows since version 1.2)
Since the web was invented in 1994, or whenever Netscape beta was released, there have been a number of really important developments:
If we gave the web version numbers like we give software version numbers we would be on version 8.5 by now.
So what is this web 2.0 thing about? And how come we go straight to 3.0 without any intervening numbers? Who decides anyway.
Sorry chaps - its nonsense.
Freelance Web Consultant at architxt.net
27 February 2007 16:25pm
I don't think technology defines Web X.X as much as access (eg. broadband) and 'culture' (eg. people buying online).
Applications that would be labelled Web 2.0 now have been around years - eg Web based outlook.
CEO at Segala
27 February 2007 18:19pm
Andrew - ReadWrite/Web wrote a good piece about the recent London mashup* at which I spoke about this subject.
27 February 2007 18:33pm
Loz - I agree. Web 2.0, Web 3.0 is simply a version number that enable us to talk about a point in time. That is, a point in time where we do x with the Web using y technology in order to achieve z.
Clear as mud?
27 February 2007 18:36pm
Thanks looks like a good event. Be interesting to see how the technology will find its way into the main stream the way Web 2.0 has done with YouTube/MySpace.
27 February 2007 18:39pm
I like the point in Web2.0 etc. being a point in time, may help people get the point :)
Sorry I'll stop now,
27 February 2007 18:48pm
Andy - Content Labels as a method of classifying and labelling content is now going through the W3C Full Recommendation track to turn it into a standard like HMTL. It will also be proposed to replace PICS - the system still in use by IE for filtering content.
Our Firefox Extension is being formally backed/endorsed by the W3C Semantic Web Education and Outreach special interest group (of which I'm a member). There's plenty more I can talk about but I don't know if I should duplicate my stuff here as well as the blog, or just keep my ramblings to the blog.
I don't want to annoy everyone with my idle banter if I'm covering it on the blog also. What do people think?
I used to write here quite often but times have been manic and as I say, fear that people are starting to only voice their opinions and ask questions from within their own communities.
27 February 2007 18:57pm
That's ok Andy :)
Some people don't like to use a version number to describe the Web. As far as I'm concerned, if getting more people engaging with the Web is the only thing that Web 2.0 achieves, then that can only be a good thing.
If talking about Web 2.0 enables companies to seek investment for their products and services it can only be good.
If talking about Web 2.0 encourages brands to put more trust in their consumers' hands by engaging with them, that can only be a good thing. Engaging with consumers is the main point for me. Consumers now have the power to market a brand, even impact it in a negative way. People will commentate on blogs whether we like it or not. So, why not allow them to commentate on our site (especially when we're worried) where we can apologise, monitor, explain or justify our methods.
Take a look at our site, it's completely based on Wordpress which means people can comment on Web pages and not just the blog. We haven't enabled it for every page as it wouldn't look right - but it's possible on a lot of pages.
We now live in a world I like to call "permanent beta" - our products and services are (or at least should be) under continuous improvement based on consumer feedback.
Ok, *I'll* stop now :)
Free market research on digital marketing
Daily Pulse: award winning newsletter
It takes 30 seconds to register