<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The correct definition of Web 3.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/</link>
	<description>Enabling a Reliable, Consistent and Trusted Experience</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:37:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Walsh</title>
		<link>http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/comment-page-1/#comment-237203</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Walsh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:07:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/#comment-237203</guid>
		<description>When I say Metadata, I don&#039;t just mean the creation of it. I mean the &#039;use&#039; of it. There&#039;s a huge number of potential applications yet to be realised. For me it&#039;s about enabling a more meaningful and trustworthy Web by making Web sites and applications interoperable, irrespective of device, location...

Regarding Mobile, it&#039;s just another device with many features that we should make better use of. I agree however, that the use of Jaiku etc. is going to revolutionise the business model that underpins the entire &#039;mobile&#039; industry. I definitely don&#039;t want Google to take full control however. One company holding so much power is bad, no matter who it is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I say Metadata, I don&#8217;t just mean the creation of it. I mean the &#8216;use&#8217; of it. There&#8217;s a huge number of potential applications yet to be realised. For me it&#8217;s about enabling a more meaningful and trustworthy Web by making Web sites and applications interoperable, irrespective of device, location&#8230;</p>
<p>Regarding Mobile, it&#8217;s just another device with many features that we should make better use of. I agree however, that the use of Jaiku etc. is going to revolutionise the business model that underpins the entire &#8216;mobile&#8217; industry. I definitely don&#8217;t want Google to take full control however. One company holding so much power is bad, no matter who it is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Pearce</title>
		<link>http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/comment-page-1/#comment-236199</link>
		<dc:creator>James Pearce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:36:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/#comment-236199</guid>
		<description>I like the idea of a service pack - why build 3.0 when most of the species hardly uses 2.0?

I think you are on the right lines. But you&#039;re missing something. It&#039;s not ambitious enough. A bit of meta data? Hmm.

We had a web of documents. Now we have a web of people. Next will be a web of things.

Fair enough, as far as it goes.

The problem with the web of people (a.k.a. web 2.0) is that it might know who their (on-line) friends are, but it doesn&#039;t really know much about them as run-time humans: their moods, their state of mind, their environment, and barely even their presence.

So dare I suggest you&#039;ve missed mobile? Mobility is the dark horse (oft mistaken for a stunted pony) that could tie together many of those missing elements, together with the semantic layer, to create would could be a true Web of Context.

(which is why Google + Jaiku + GMM + StreetView + Android + ... may be the best glimpse of how the next web platform could shape up)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the idea of a service pack &#8211; why build 3.0 when most of the species hardly uses 2.0?</p>
<p>I think you are on the right lines. But you&#8217;re missing something. It&#8217;s not ambitious enough. A bit of meta data? Hmm.</p>
<p>We had a web of documents. Now we have a web of people. Next will be a web of things.</p>
<p>Fair enough, as far as it goes.</p>
<p>The problem with the web of people (a.k.a. web 2.0) is that it might know who their (on-line) friends are, but it doesn&#8217;t really know much about them as run-time humans: their moods, their state of mind, their environment, and barely even their presence.</p>
<p>So dare I suggest you&#8217;ve missed mobile? Mobility is the dark horse (oft mistaken for a stunted pony) that could tie together many of those missing elements, together with the semantic layer, to create would could be a true Web of Context.</p>
<p>(which is why Google + Jaiku + GMM + StreetView + Android + &#8230; may be the best glimpse of how the next web platform could shape up)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Flinn</title>
		<link>http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/comment-page-1/#comment-233637</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Flinn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2007 15:16:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/#comment-233637</guid>
		<description>With respect to Web 3.0, I suspect like another fuzzy categorization cited by a supreme court justice, &quot;you&#039;ll know it when you see it.&quot;

But from our perspective at ManyWorlds, we suspect that the essence will be advanced content and taxonomy management that is completely integrated with social networking, and with built-in learning capabilities that automatically deliver intelligent and personlized suggestions throughout all phases of the system.

There is much more to be done, but we have just such a demonstration system up and running at www.manyworlds.com (currently focused primarily on large company business strategy, but extensible to any domain).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With respect to Web 3.0, I suspect like another fuzzy categorization cited by a supreme court justice, &#8220;you&#8217;ll know it when you see it.&#8221;</p>
<p>But from our perspective at ManyWorlds, we suspect that the essence will be advanced content and taxonomy management that is completely integrated with social networking, and with built-in learning capabilities that automatically deliver intelligent and personlized suggestions throughout all phases of the system.</p>
<p>There is much more to be done, but we have just such a demonstration system up and running at <a href="http://www.manyworlds.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.manyworlds.com</a> (currently focused primarily on large company business strategy, but extensible to any domain).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gavin O'Carroll</title>
		<link>http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/comment-page-1/#comment-233280</link>
		<dc:creator>Gavin O'Carroll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:02:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/#comment-233280</guid>
		<description>It feels to me that the semantic web is still Web 2.0.  I have the feeling that Web 1.0 Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 mirrors the economy in terms of a functional economy (buying a sack of coffee beans in a sack from a market stall), the service economy (someone making it for you in a shop) and the experience economy (the flavour, cups, newpapers laid out and decor of a nice cafe).

It will be experience driven.  This post points is feeling it:

http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2007/10/jason-calacanis.html

&quot;Personally, I feel the vague lineaments of something beyond Web 2.0, and they involve some fairly radical steps. Imagine a Web without browsers. Imagine breaking completely away from the document metaphor, or a true blurring of application and information. That&#039;s what Web 3.0 will be, but I bet we will call it something else.&quot;

Just my 2 cents.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It feels to me that the semantic web is still Web 2.0.  I have the feeling that Web 1.0 Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 mirrors the economy in terms of a functional economy (buying a sack of coffee beans in a sack from a market stall), the service economy (someone making it for you in a shop) and the experience economy (the flavour, cups, newpapers laid out and decor of a nice cafe).</p>
<p>It will be experience driven.  This post points is feeling it:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2007/10/jason-calacanis.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/2007/10/jason-calacanis.html</a></p>
<p>&#8220;Personally, I feel the vague lineaments of something beyond Web 2.0, and they involve some fairly radical steps. Imagine a Web without browsers. Imagine breaking completely away from the document metaphor, or a true blurring of application and information. That&#8217;s what Web 3.0 will be, but I bet we will call it something else.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Walsh</title>
		<link>http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/comment-page-1/#comment-233248</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Walsh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:37:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/#comment-233248</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the clarification Jeremiah. I didn&#039;t like those terms either and when I questioned why people were referring to O&#039;Reilly for the definition of Web 2.0 as he merely provided analogies, he kindly redefined and referenced my question.

That said, don&#039;t you think the versioning, however silly, provides us with a benchmark with which to refer to specific capabilities, whether technology or marketing driven?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the clarification Jeremiah. I didn&#8217;t like those terms either and when I questioned why people were referring to O&#8217;Reilly for the definition of Web 2.0 as he merely provided analogies, he kindly redefined and referenced my question.</p>
<p>That said, don&#8217;t you think the versioning, however silly, provides us with a benchmark with which to refer to specific capabilities, whether technology or marketing driven?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremiah Owyang</title>
		<link>http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/comment-page-1/#comment-232648</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremiah Owyang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:34:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://segala.com/blog/the-definition-of-web-30/#comment-232648</guid>
		<description>Just so you know, I don&#039;t love the term web 2.0 or web 3.0 nor do I support Jason&#039;s definition.  

I was just making a comparison of what Google was announcing and what he had also said previously.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just so you know, I don&#8217;t love the term web 2.0 or web 3.0 nor do I support Jason&#8217;s definition.  </p>
<p>I was just making a comparison of what Google was announcing and what he had also said previously.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

