While I do agree with your points in the article for the most part, I hate assigning version numbers to the web. Why are we just now at version 2.5? Hasn't a lot happened from 1991-about 2004? The web is too free flowing and cannot be separated down into version numbers. Even if it could be, the numbers started a bit late.
Shey
· 1 year ago
Thank you for not using Web 3.0 to describe Web 2.5 -- I can't stand how some folks are using Web 2.0/3.0. There has definitely been a progression since the last web evolution, but development of aggregation, data portability, and filtering systems are not enough for me to call it totally revolutionary.
glemak
· 1 year ago
i also don't like the trend towards assigning versions to big blocks of web innovation but the points you raise regarding the current popularity of aggregation of presence (lifestreaming) data portability and filtering are right on and pre-semantic web - so if you feel the need to bucketize these into web 2.5 so be it - makes it easier to talk about things outside the chamber i suppose ;)
Melanie Baker
· 1 year ago
Absolutely, though of course it's all really embryonic at this point -- makes it ever more fascinating as to how it'll all shake out.
We've been talking recently about a panel for an upcoming conference on the theme of "next generation of foundational information channels". Personally, too, I think the next generation of focus will be sorting things out by personal relevance and relationships -- potentially quite tricky.
I think we've got a lot of iteration ahead of us before we have solid, ingrained (personal) info management strategies. (Hence my reluctance to assign any numbers, which solidly place moments on a continuum.)
And ultimately, I don't know that we'll have "one to rule them all", but, perhaps, a set of neatly interchangeable tools so everyone can pick and choose what works for them.
noahsussman
· 1 year ago
"The web, once just a repository for data, has transformed over the years to become a tool for connecting people."
Um, what? Tim Berners-Lee's original vision was a read-write web, a participant network. And even the Internet and Arpanet that existed before the Web, served to connect academic and scientific communities.
Unfortunately, when the Web went commercial in the mid-nineties, corporate managers and marketers, couldn't immediately make the conceptual jump from "static" media like TV and magazines, to the social web. So we wound up with a commercial Web that was indeed a "repository for data" (ie, a bunch of flash and PDFs).
IM and Twitter are just IRC. MySpace is just a simplified UI for authoring HTML and emailing. World of Warcraft is a MUD with a nice graphics engine layered on top. The paradigms everyone is buzzing about are 20+ years old.
The only interesting thing about "Web 2" is that the Fortune 500 are finally ready to adopt some of these "new" strategies, instead of just barfing out a new MTV Flash site every 6 months.
It seems to me that after 10 years of getting their asses handed to them by smaller companies run by people who actually got what the Web was meant to be used for, the marketing team have finally started to accept the obvious; and now they're trying to spin it as if they thought of the whole concept.
Jas Talents and Models
· 11 months ago
Connecting people and web of information.... one can learn anything form the internet. That's the beauty of it. But it is also subject to abuse and COMMERCIALISM.
All Comments
We've been talking recently about a panel for an upcoming conference on the theme of "next generation of foundational information channels". Personally, too, I think the next generation of focus will be sorting things out by personal relevance and relationships -- potentially quite tricky.
I think we've got a lot of iteration ahead of us before we have solid, ingrained (personal) info management strategies. (Hence my reluctance to assign any numbers, which solidly place moments on a continuum.)
And ultimately, I don't know that we'll have "one to rule them all", but, perhaps, a set of neatly interchangeable tools so everyone can pick and choose what works for them.
Um, what? Tim Berners-Lee's original vision was a read-write web, a participant network. And even the Internet and Arpanet that existed before the Web, served to connect academic and scientific communities.
Unfortunately, when the Web went commercial in the mid-nineties, corporate managers and marketers, couldn't immediately make the conceptual jump from "static" media like TV and magazines, to the social web. So we wound up with a commercial Web that was indeed a "repository for data" (ie, a bunch of flash and PDFs).
IM and Twitter are just IRC. MySpace is just a simplified UI for authoring HTML and emailing. World of Warcraft is a MUD with a nice graphics engine layered on top. The paradigms everyone is buzzing about are 20+ years old.
The only interesting thing about "Web 2" is that the Fortune 500 are finally ready to adopt some of these "new" strategies, instead of just barfing out a new MTV Flash site every 6 months.
It seems to me that after 10 years of getting their asses handed to them by smaller companies run by people who actually got what the Web was meant to be used for, the marketing team have finally started to accept the obvious; and now they're trying to spin it as if they thought of the whole concept.