| Sometime...oh, around 2004...you probably started | | | | which any site can access for customizing what |
| hearing buzz about "Web 2.0...The next generation | | | | individuals see. |
| of the Internet." The term was coined by O'Reilly | | | | Allows different sites and services to be |
| Media. And though everyone you ask gives you a | | | | combined (just as Google Maps, MapQuest, and |
| different definition of the way Web 2.0 should | | | | site visitation counters are added to many Web |
| look and feel, perhaps the best definition can be | | | | sites today). |
| found in the company's own archives, here: | | | | Uses the Internet itself as an operating system |
| O'Reilly Publishing's Original Web 2.0 Description. | | | | (a'la "Cloud" applications that run directly across |
| And O'Reilly continues to call Web 2.0 a | | | | the web, rather than being installed on our PCs). |
| "transformative force." But have you felt it yet? | | | | This too is happening already. |
| You may just have. | | | | Replaces keyword searches with intelligent |
| O'Reilly's early definition differentiated Web 2.0 | | | | content sifting and delivery, based on interpreting |
| from Web 1.0 (the old "cloud") in that: | | | | the context of conversationally typed requests. |
| Private content management systems would be | | | | For example, you'll be able to type "Where's the |
| replaced by editable public Wikis. | | | | nearest store that still has a paperback copy of |
| Personal web sites would give way to dynamic | | | | Dan Brown's latest book...for under $10?"...and get |
| communal blogs. | | | | a concise answer. (By "Web 4.0," some say, this |
| Publishing would take a back seat to participation. | | | | will give way to full artificially intelligent interfaces.) |
| Web content would become more configurable. | | | | And once again, Second Life is being held out as a |
| New services would make it easier for people to | | | | possible model for the look and feel of this "next" |
| connect interactively. | | | | Internet (which is also being called "Web 3D"). I |
| Financial speculation on domain names (to lock | | | | won't hold my breath on that, though! If I go to |
| down good URLs) would become less prevalent | | | | IBM's, Microsoft's, and Amazon's web sites (all long |
| than search engine optimization (to help people | | | | time SL partners), their Web interfaces are still |
| find sites and content regardless of its URL). | | | | glaringly 2D. I can't click and find myself walking |
| Companies even advertised that their products | | | | through a 3D virtual store, able to browse |
| and services were "Web 2.0 ready," subtly | | | | shelves, pick up books, scan their pages, carry |
| implying that Web 2.0 was some sort of official | | | | purchases to a virtual check out station, and |
| specification, which it wasn't. Some even | | | | enter payment and shipping data by swiping a |
| speculated that the Web 2.0 Internet would | | | | secure virtual ID card. Not today, anyway. |
| become a 3D virtual world like Second Life (SL). | | | | But several companies are working on |
| And the fact that IBM and Microsoft were big SL | | | | experimental 3D browsers. For more information |
| backers did blow some wind into that sail. | | | | about that, just Google phrases like "3D browser", |
| In reality, O'Reilly's Web 2.0 description has been | | | | "Google 3D browser", "Google SketchUp", Firefox |
| materializing all around us, unnoticed by most for | | | | 3D Browser", and "AT&T 3D browser". From |
| what it was. The above bullets sound mighty | | | | what I've seen, they all look like 2D interfaces |
| familiar, don't they? Wikis and blogs are | | | | with slickly layered 3D effects... not like truly |
| everywhere now. We increasingly friend and track | | | | immersive, 3D, information environments. |
| each other in sites like FaceBook, LinkedIn, and | | | | Some have even claimed that Web 3.0 may need |
| Twitter. And through them, our small, personal, | | | | to run on its own separate network and use its |
| "Villages" are merging into global meshes. | | | | own new protocols...implying that it will be easier |
| Most of us in the Learning world live and work | | | | to build the next Internet from scratch. I |
| online, like tropical fish in an aquarium. And the | | | | personally know how hard it is to release just one |
| water in which we've been swimming all along has | | | | new version of a single software product. I know |
| picked up Web 2.0 colors even as we breathe it | | | | how tough it is to keep it both forward |
| in. | | | | compatible with future plans and backward |
| And Now Comes "Web 3.0" | | | | compatible with existing users. So I don't for one |
| Many people are now describing the "next" Web | | | | minute believe that an entirely new Web 3.0 |
| 3.0 Internet as a "personal assistant" that: | | | | network will one day "replace" our familiar |
| Learns our habits and interests by watching past | | | | Internet. |
| activities, and automatically focuses information | | | | More likely, Web 3.0 will sneak up on us bit by |
| delivered to us. (Can you say "Cookies"?) | | | | bit...in the night...just as Web 2.0 did (and is still |
| Maintains web based personal browsing histories, | | | | doing). |