Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Technology

Gartner Touts Web 2.0, Scoffs At Web 3.0 187

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the web-2.1.12.3-just-doesn't-have-quite-the-same-ring dept.
An anonymous reader writes to mention that even though Web 2.0 is just now starting to gain widespread acceptance, there are those who are already trying to hijack the term Web 3.0. According to Gartner, there are quite a few new technologies and incremental modifications to existing Web 2.0 technology, but nothing that could equal the level of fundamental change exhibited by the shift to Web 2.0.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gartner Touts Web 2.0, Scoffs At Web 3.0 More

Gartner Touts Web 2.0, Scoffs At Web 3.0

Comments Filter:

  • Shif? (Score:2, Funny)

    by ribo-bailey ( 724061 )
    :O

    • Re:Shif? (Score:5, Funny)

      by HBK-4G ( 2475 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:47PM (#20734451)
      Web 3.0 is muc faste becaus i drop extr letter. Paradig shif.

      Or maybe everything old is new again, and it's merely shorthand for the Web.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by smittyoneeach ( 243267 ) *

        Web 3.0 is muc faste becaus i drop extr letter.
        So, if XML became ML, would the result be more functional?

  • Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)

    by cromar ( 1103585 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:44PM (#20734417)
    Web 4.0 is even better!

    • Wrong Increment (Score:5, Funny)

      by WED Fan ( 911325 ) <akahige@NOspAm.trashmail.net> on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:50PM (#20734501) Homepage Journal

      Web NT follows 3.0

      Web ME will be a more family and consumer friendly web.

      Web XP will be the new Experienced Web.

      I felt a disturbance in the web, as if a thousand geeks cried, "Don't give them any ideas, you f*&$king moron!

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by kat_skan ( 5219 )

        Web XP will be the new Experienced Web.

        Advice: move to an off-grid shack in Montana before anyone has an opportunity to create Goatse Experienced.

        I felt a disturbance in the web, as if a thousand geeks cried, "Don't give them any ideas, you f*&$king moron!

        Oh. Er. Nevermind, I didn't say anything.

      • Re:Wrong Increment (Score:5, Funny)

        by s.bots ( 1099921 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:44PM (#20735277)
        My Web goes to 11.0! No, no, you don't get it... IT GOES TO 11.0!!!!!!! Most just go to 10.0.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by glwtta ( 532858 )
        And after that, Web.Net will collapse into a heap of vague redundancy.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by cleatsupkeep ( 1132585 )
        Which of those will be the year of the linux web? All of them? The next year?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by suggsjc ( 726146 )
        Web Vista will flop despite claims of being using on 100 bazillion websites.
        However, luckily there will be a process in place to revert any Web Vista sites back to Web XP.

    • Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ivanmarsh ( 634711 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:50PM (#20734507)
      Web 2.0 = Broken and slow.
      Web 3.0 = ?Not working at all?

      Does web 4.0 actually remove information from your brain?

      I've said it before and I'll say it again: If I can't get to the information I'm looking for it doesn't matter how pretty it is.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by foobsr ( 693224 )
        Does web 4.0 actually remove information from your brain?

        Too much information in the brain regularly does not pose a difficult problem to most of the populace. Thus ...

        "Web 4.0 will be focused on slimming down the fat of Web 3.0. Much like moving from pure HTML design mark-up to CSS, we will all be trying to separate our fat from body. This will be done with LSS (Liposuction Style Sheets), which will suck our fat out of our ass and dress us in the latest trendy clothings. At this period in time, the s

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
        "Does web 4.0 actually remove information from your brain?"

        Been to any Web 2.0 sites lately? I don't think we need to wait for Web 4....
      • Web 4.0 will be GoogleOS, an operating system run inside your web browser. Like gmail, where pressing the back button logs you out, pressing back in GoogleOS will shut down.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mh1997 ( 1065630 )
      "Web 4.0 is even better!"

      I call dibs on the greatly improved Web 5.0!

    • Dude... I heard they're gonna skip Web 5.0 and go straight to Web 6.0 -- and it's gonna sooooo kick Web 4.0's ass! With that right around the corner, forget Web 3.0; I'm not even upgrading to Web 2.0. I mean what's the point?
    • Web 4.0 is all about "lean and mean". Synergetically mashed-up social portals using specialized communication protocols and highly centralized development facilities. Basically it's HTML.
    • Actually, is not that way around here: You only coin 2.0s, and stop there;
      So I bet the future will be (breath held).... AJAX 2.0 !!!!!!!

      (Not kidding, I do think of JavaScript 2.0...)

  • Web 2.0? 3.0? (Score:5, Funny)

    by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:44PM (#20734421) Homepage Journal
    Screw this. I'm waiting for Web 3.11 for Workgroups.

  • Not to worry (Score:3, Funny)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:44PM (#20734423) Homepage
    even though Web 2.0 is just now starting to gain widespread acceptance, there are those who are already trying to hijack the term Web 3.0.

    Well pity on them, because little to they know that the version numbers for the internet do not increment by one, they double. So the next version will be 4.0.

  • And next week... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Penguinshit ( 591885 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:46PM (#20734445) Homepage Journal
    ...Gartner will proclaim the wonders of Web 3.0 after someone blows a monthly expense account on a Gartner "analyst".

    Useless whores.

  • The meaning of life? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have at what version of the web will we understand the meaning of life the universe and everything? Web 42.0!

  • hype (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:50PM (#20734503) Homepage Journal

    but nothing that could equal the level of fundamental change exhibited by the shif to Web 2.0.
    Which is? That lots of webpages are way more annoying now and their layout will break completely if you're not using the exact browser they were designed with? Oh wait, we don't have those problems anymore, right? Yeah, right...

    Sorry, but Google Maps is one of the very few places where "Web 2.0" actually gives me something that wouldn't have been doable in "Web 1.0". Most places just use it as "look it moves"-type eye-candy.

    Wake me when people are using "Web 2.0" to make their sites more useable, instead of just more shiney. Those that do are still a tiny minority. Until then, shut up about higher version numbers. Bugfix the old one first.

    • Re:hype (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Incoherent07 ( 695470 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:01PM (#20734655)
      The trick is that there are two aspects to Web 2.0. There's Ajax (and things that look or act like Ajax), which does tend to be used badly in many cases. (I would argue that being able to get new data without a page reload is a positive for usability, but you're free to disagree.)

      The second aspect is more social: where Web 1.0 focused more on a one-way "I write this page, then you read it" exchange, Web 2.0 encourages multi-way communication, and users contributing content. While this idea isn't exactly new, it's something that's really caught fire recently, and if you actually read the article you'll notice that they're talking about wikis and social networks, which aren't Web 2.0 in an Ajax sense so much as Web 2.0 in a social sense.

      So yeah, you can wake up and go look at Wikipedia now.

      • Re:hype (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tom ( 822 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @06:05PM (#20735515) Homepage Journal
        But then where is the transition? Where is "Web 2.0" where there wasn't one before? The first Wiki was invented in 1994. There were other, similar systems 10 years before that.

        Social websites aren't any news, either. It's just that they're suddenly popular and everywhere. Sure MySpace is new, but there were sites much like it 10 years ago. Ok, maybe 8. Actually, thinking about it, I dimly remember a "social website" like thing back from my BBS days.

        So what is "Web 2.0" if not Ajax etc.? Is it a phase, a trend? iTunes is something that's at least as new, if not more so, than MySpace, but it's not counted in the "Web 2.0" thing, is it? Why not? What about Amazon? The reader reviews are often very useful. Other community product review sites have been around at least since the CEO of my dot-com company started one about 6 years ago.

        So, really, when you look at it, what is "Web 2.0", except hype?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Incoherent07 ( 695470 )
          I think the numbering system is unfortunate (you can blame O'Reilly Media throwing names at the wall until one stuck), since it's not really analogous to changing from Version 5 of WidgetMaker to Version 6, with Fancy New Widget Making Capabilities. There's no "box" that you can put Web 2.0 in and sell to people. You're absolutely right that BBSes, wikis, Slashdot's comments, and Amazon's reviews all go back to various points in history that the talking heads wouldn't call "Web 2.0".

          But really, there's SO

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mstahl ( 701501 )

          Where is "Web 2.0" where there wasn't one before?

          Someone gave an existing phenomenon a name? New names for things are good for marketing. I should know; I'm in marketing, to the extent that my soul can take the abuse.

          So what is "Web 2.0" if not Ajax etc.? Is it a phase, a trend?

          A lot of the hallmarks of Web 2.0 that people list off are really just inevitable consequences of the maturing of the internet. These are things like AJAX and social networking. I don't think those really count as new things since, as you pointed out, they've been around for a while. I see Web 2.0 as being more things like Google Earth,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hatta ( 162192 )
        While this idea isn't exactly new

        Which is exactly why calling it Web 2.0 is a stupid idea. /. has had user contributed stories, comments, and moderation since the mid 1990s. There's nothing about "web 2.0" that would require a major version change. That is, if the web were something that made sense to label with version numbers, which it's not.

      • Re:hype (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @06:50PM (#20736093)
        There's nothing new about the "social" aspects of Web 2.0. Maybe it's the business model: we'll have no content and make money by showing people ads to look at their own content. No, wait, that's old too. Geocities and Angelfire had that in the 90's (and had their flare of hype then turned into a stinking swamp just like MySpace).

        The ONLY thing new about Web 2.0 is the AJAXy aspect. Someone overreacted on that one, came up with Web 2.0 and then all the other stuff was added, by people who apparently aren't familiar with history, to justify such an inane term. Or maybe it's because somebody want's to justify another web bubble.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by timpaton ( 748607 )

        Web 1.0 focused more on a one-way "I write this page, then you read it" exchange, Web 2.0 encourages multi-way communication, and users contributing content

        "Web 2.0" (stupid term) concentrates ownership of the web into the hands of larger organisations.

        Any monkey can build a Web 1.0 site. All it takes is a keyboard and text editor (or WYSInotWYG html editor). Host it somewhere, and if the host turns evil (or the site gets popular and needs more resources), pick it up and move it somewhere else. If Joe Ave

      • Web 2.0 encourages multi-way communication, and users contributing content.

        That reminds me of this public noticeboard thing down at the laundromat. What's it called again? Oh yeah, a bulletin board. I predict that Web 3.0 will be known as the 'Bulletin Board System'.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Fred_A ( 10934 )

        While this idea isn't exactly new, it's something that's really caught fire recently [...]
        But look ! the logo ! it's on fire !

    • Re:hype (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:33PM (#20735089)
      "Web 2.0" doesn't mean anything. Google Maps is just a website. It uses javascript and iFrames to achieve something approaching an application. Those two pieces of technology have been around since HTML4 was first conceived.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Inda ( 580031 )
      Wake me when people start using AJAX properly. Don't use it to make 50 requests for 50 variables. Get the server to return HTML, fuckwads.

      I remember when my P3 450 used to render pages in less than a second! Wait, it still does on static pages, and gmail and Google Maps and the BBC and a few other decent sites.

      William Hill and Slashdot 2.00 , I'm looking at you first. Well, at least I can get plain-Jane HTML here - for the moment.

  • Web 2.0 ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sundru ( 709023 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:51PM (#20734511)
    Anyone even know what Web 2.0 means?

    • Re:Web 2.0 ? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:54PM (#20734555)
      Nothing at all. It is a colloquial term, like AJAX. It refers to any number of things, from social networking to web apps, as long as it is done without applets. I think.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by glwtta ( 532858 )
        Huh? Out of this whole soup of annoying misnomers, Ajax is just about the only thing that refers to a specific technology.
        • AJAX is not a technology, it is a loosely defined method of designing a web app. It originally referred to an IE-only technique of transferring data between a web browser and a server, but has since been used to describe all sorts of things, even things that don't involve XMLHttpRequest objects. I have seen designs that use hidden frames to send POST requests to a server as "AJAX," and among non-programmers, I have even heard AJAX used to refer to plain old DHTML pages. "AJAX" was invented during a marke

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Ajehals ( 947354 )
            AJAX was and will always be a cleaning fluid.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by PCM2 ( 4486 )

              AJAX was and will always be a cleaning fluid.

              O RLY? You can only buy the powdered form where I live.

            • What? It's a powder, any housekeeper or fan of Cheech and Chong movies would know that.

              You, sir, can turn in your pothead AND housekeeper cards right now.

              So much for "News for maids... cleaning stuff that splatters".

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Ajehals ( 947354 )
                Ajax is a liquid *or* powdered cleaner apparently by Colgate-Palmolive (soft teeth and white hands brand)

                I seem to remember the liquid, I don't think I ever bought the powder.

                Also there was Jif or Cif or Vim or whatever it is called now, that was a cleaning fluid, thick and quite good at its job, stopped buying it when I couldn't tell it apart from its rivals (never rename a perfectly good product it doesn't work as well (Ethereal vs Wireshark?). Now I just use whatever Tesco has that looks like its a clea

          • "AJAX" was invented during a marketing meeting to refer to a set of technologies that some sales rep was trying sell, at least as I have heard it

            One of the key AJAX distinctions is that, like REST, there is nothing to sell; it uses ordinary web tools. Whatever the source, it wasn't anyone trying to market a product. A book, maybe.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ronadams ( 987516 )

      It's like .NET, widget, AJAX, and Silverlight...

      You aren't supposed to know. That's what makes it so cool! GETIT?!

    • Re:Web 2.0 ? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by psykocrime ( 61037 ) <mindcrime&cpphacker,co,uk> on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:13PM (#20734815) Homepage Journal
      Anyone even know what Web 2.0 means?

      Loosely translated it means "vacuous buzzword that vendors slap on products, along with a fresh coat of paint, so they can sell the same old same old for more money; except in the case of vendors with new products, who slap 'web 2.0' on their products in an effort to be 'buzzword compliant;' or in the case of book, article and blog writers, it's a term they use to make themselves sound more sophisticated and 'in the know' than they really are."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Fred_A ( 10934 )

        Anyone even know what Web 2.0 means?

        Loosely translated it means "vacuous buzzword that vendors slap on products, along with a fresh coat of paint, so they can sell the same old same old for more money; except in the case of vendors with new products, who slap 'web 2.0' on their products in an effort to be 'buzzword compliant;' or in the case of book, article and blog writers, it's a term they use to make themselves sound more sophisticated and 'in the know' than they really are."

        You really had to spoil the fun for everybody didn't you ? I'm not inviting you at my product release party !

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Shotgun ( 30919 )
      It means that all the old engineers get to pull out the patents they file 40 years ago and refile them. This time with "a plethora of Web2.0 interfaces with one or a plethora of backend servers provide Web2.0 content to one or a plethora of user with one or a plethora of Web2.0 enable machine to convey one or a plethora pieces of Web2.0 information."

    • Re:Web 2.0 ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShieldW0lf ( 601553 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:23PM (#20734929) Journal
      Web 2.0 is everything that was only practical on an intranet 5 years ago, but is now practical across the internet.

      Except now we have the XMLHttpRequest object, and no longer need to resort to things like modal dialog windows, hidden frames and web bugs to achieve these effects.

      That pretty much sums it up.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      Web 2.0 means lots of things.
      What it means I am sorry to say is a white page with pastel colors containing links to others content. Thow comments of which 99% are just useless and or flamebait and you have Web 2.0.
      Or as I like to call it Digg.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dbIII ( 701233 )

      Anyone even know what Web 2.0 means?

      It's a truck loaded with a series of tubes.

    • Anyone even know what Web 2.0 means?
      According to Greg Knauss, the definition of "Web 2.0" is:

      The name given to the social and technical sophistication and maturity that mark the-- Oh, screw it. Money! Money money money! Money! The money's back! Ha ha! Money!

  • spoon (Score:5, Funny)

    by N3wsByt3 ( 758224 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:58PM (#20734609) Journal
    Do not try to understand or comprehend web 3.0. That's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth: there is no web 3.0.

    Heck, there isn't even a web 2.0.

  • blogosphere? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jythie ( 914043 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @04:59PM (#20734625)
    So does this mean the blogosphere will become the blogohypersphere? More dimensions makes it better.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by glwtta ( 532858 )
      No, it will become the blagodysonsphere - hopefully that will mean we won't be able to see what goes on inside it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jythie ( 914043 )
        I think I will stick to my blogoring myself. That way if I get annoying comments I can just nudge it into the sun and kill everyone.

  • HTML 3 & 4! CSS? AJAX? RAILS? What is this nonsense? No no, I will take my tables with a hint of information > pretty colors, healthy servings of pure .txt FAQ's within inline Frames, non threatening bullet list navigations in side frames! Max resolutions of 800x600!
    GIF over PNG's Guestbook & counters over spamming comment parades
    I am General Nitro, Son of Berners-Lee! Join me now and I will advocate for the early release of Mitnik! Web 2.0 will bow down before our glorious empire, and

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Fred_A ( 10934 )
      I find your comment intriguing and would like to subscribe to your gopher site.
  • My web site will now be a collection of text files.

  • Offline apps (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:08PM (#20734729) Homepage
    For me Google Gears is the first sign of (ugh) Web 3.0... or at least, the next level of capability.

    It's now perfectly possible* to build a database driven app that is 'installed' over the internet and will run _totally_ off line. You can run a background thread to do data syncing for you.

    This is a really neat deployment method for a lot of apps - OS independent! - that don't warrant a full install process. You could build a web store that was available all the time for example, and grabbed current prices when on line and remembered your (selected off line) shopping list when you had a connection available again.

    Obviously this would be of no use if we lived in a perfect world where connection was continuous, but out here where 3G doesn't work in tunnels and free public wifi is getting more, rather than less, rare, well designed off line capable web apps are a serious potential move forwards in usability and well worthy of a web x.? increment.

    *Actually, it's been possible for a while but someone made a neat package to help you do it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PieSquared ( 867490 )
      That's great and all but probably not worth spending much time on. I mean, how often do you use your computer without an internet connection these days? When you're on a plane, maybe? Maybe I'm just terribly different, living on a college campus, but I never take out my laptop in a place where there isn't a wireless connection. I mean, if you're stuck in an area without broadband obviously you aren't connected 24/7 but we're supposed to be making it so that nobody is stuck in that situation.

      I'm just say

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
      OMG! Web 3.0 was invented in the 90s! After all, that's when it became perfectly possible to do all those things. Or maybe it was the 80's. My memory is a bit hazy.
  • There's still lots of fun stuff that can be done with Web 1.0... even on an iPhone. [pixelcity.com] (shameless plug)

    Actually, what I'd really like to see would be a return to true Web 1.0 roots--you know, device independence, things like that. To be honest, the iPhone's method of shrinking web pages is just a not-so-elegant workaround. It's nice sometimes, but I'd prefer it if the iPhone just reflowed plain pages like this [gutenberg.org] to 320 pixels wide (without a viewport specified) like my Axim does.* (I say this as a happy iPhone o

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
      Hear hear. I hate websites that specify a width and then stick to it come hell or high water. Whenever I'm involved with designing a site (thankfully not very often) I have to beat people with the idea that fixed width pages aren't cool.

      Poor HTML... look what they've done to you.

  • Web 2.0... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:30PM (#20735031)
    ... is just maketing drivel. Anyone who uses that term to describe anything in particular is talking out of their ass.

  • Gartner? Ugh (Score:2, Informative)

    by Chlorus ( 1146335 )
    I'm sorry, but after an incident quite some time ago, I can no longer take anything the Gartner group says seriously. Back in freshman year of college, an assignment required reading an essay published by a Gartner analyst. The title was "When Ants Beat Spiders"(a shame I can't find my old copy of it). Basically, the work was over the limitations of spider based search engines. The analyst then suggested using an ant like model, to search "well traveled data paths and examine dynamic content". That's all we
  • Dilbert will have to change his "Anti-Meeting Spell." (See dilbert.com or the Sunday paper a couple of weeks ago)

  • Web 2.0 hrmph! (Score:5, Informative)

    by ZwJGR ( 1014973 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:34PM (#20735101)
    Bah, humbug!

    Web 2.0 is just another meaningless marketing term to describe a bunch of seemingly wonderful javascript, blog and wiki, pages, invented by redundant, marketing imbeciles, in order to hoodwink incompetent .com "company" managers.

    Anybody who declares their page as Web 3.0, (or even Web 2.0, for that matter), should have their page DRDoSd off of the internet. >:(

    Especially as these so called Web 2.0 pages are simply over-bloated, badly-designed, poorly-laid-out, standards-incompliant, overrated, over-hyped, excessively-resource-intensive, specimens of electronic refuse, often totally devoid of useful content, and consisting of enough images and poorly written code to electrically power a small town.

    Note how people who run frugal and efficient blogs, ajax pages, etc. NEVER refer to their page as Web 2.0, they are too wise to demean themselves so.

    For the sake of the internet, web designers, please don't either copy these "sites", or pay art drop-outs to design your website, as doing so, will lead to the spread of this miasmic "Web 2.0", clogging up our screens and the networks with redundant and meaningless trifle.

  • I'm sorry, but using the same technologies that have existed for years in shinier and more sophisticated ways does not a version shift make. Rather, we are talking about a sort of Web 1.4, or more accurately Web CVS20070924.

    Web 2.0 will come when the very foundations of the web, HTML/XHTML, CSS, and Javascript, are shaken from the foundation (which, at least with CSS, is a long time coming IMO).

  • There we go with web 2.0 crap again. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Monday September 24, 2007 @05:55PM (#20735417) Homepage Journal
    "widespread acceptance" - WHERE, who, what ? the big boys, google msn and such ? do they even count as acceptance compared to millions of sites that constitute the internet ?

    "the level of fundamental change exhibited by the shift to Web 2.0" - and WHAT are those for god's sakes ? placing streaming video in web pages ? just what ?

    just what is 'web 2.0' for frigging christ's sake anyway ?
  • I'm still trying to like Web 1.0, never mind the over-hyped user experience that is 2.0. I'm probably a dinosaur, but I just don't get it.
  • We don't even have Web 2.0 SP1 installed yet.
  • Until every site out there is a wiki, we won't have a true Web 2.0 to play with, so talking about a Web 3.0 sounds like another marketer's attempt to grab the headlines (and they succeed).
  • But will it run Linux?
  • I have seen several references to the Semantic Web as "Web 3.0". I have yet to see any researcher endorsing that term though, but it does sound like a good marketing term if the Web 2.0 gets good acceptance.

    The Semantic Web should bring a big paradigm shift : the idea that every information should be labeled with meta-data and also the understanding that this can't be done by the average webmaster but that some sort of automation has to be done. This automation is of course the greatest challenge. The on

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close