Where Do You Stand on Web 3.0?
Published 2 years ago by James Simmons
I recently read on Network World that Gartner's David Mitchell Smith said "There are a lot of constituencies trying to hijack the term Web 3.0." I don't think I like Web 3.0 just yet, do you? I agree with the Gartner representative that Web 3.0 wreaks of marketing hype, and in my opinion it is a race by people that felt left behind by the Web 2.0 movement. Vendors pushing the term Web 3.0 are advocating the rise of the Mobile Web, virtual worlds, and the Semantic Web. I agree that all of these technologies will take rise, but I don't agree that we should call that era "Web 3.0."
Web 2.0 was — and in many ways still is — a rather ambiguous term coined to represent a new design style, out-of-the-box ideas about user and community interaction, and the implementation of slick albeit already existing technologies to revolutionize Web user interfaces. Let's not forget tagging, folksonomies, AJAX, the wisdom of crowds, and so on. Web 2.0 is not a technology, it is a label that represents a group of technologies, design patterns, and ideals. In the same way, Web 3.0 is not a technology, but the labeling of a group (or groups) of technologies, design patterns, and new standards.
I'm not the only one talking about this. Nova Spivack and Yihong Ding have both posted responses to Micthell's stance on Web 3.0.
I agree with several of Yihong's points. While he appears to support the idea of a Web 3.0, he does not agree with the current idea of what Web 3.0 will be, nor does he think we can predict that at this point. As I said earlier, I don't like the idea of Web 3.0. I don't support arbitrary versioning of an ever-evolving network of nodes supported by an evolving set of standards and technologies. We never hit a version at any point in the Web. I entertain the versioning systems, don't get me wrong, it makes talking about the old era (Web 1.0) and the current era (Web 2.0) a lot easier. I just don't think we need to keep this versioning tradition going.
"Please don't tie Web 3.0 tight to Semantic Web. Yes, please, as Gartner has disapproved."
- Yihong Ding; Gartner rejects the temptation of Web 3.0
I say this to myself whenever I hear someone associate the Semantic Web with Web 3.0. You have to ask yourself if it makes sense to continue versioning the Web. Yihong lists his ideas of what Web 3.0 might be:
- Entry-level version of the Semantic Web that can be visualized by virtual worlds and accessed through mobile devices
- Embedding of semantic specification into virtual worlds
- The interpretation and specification of semantics through mobile devices
Nova supports Web 3.0 through and through. In February 2007 Nova posted a diagram of his idea of where Web evolution was headed:
In that post he says the diagram illustrates his thinking at that time at his company Radar Networks. He also considers that path to be where they are headed. So being an advocate of Web versioning he naturally disagrees with what Mitchell has to say about Web 3.0.
In his post about Gartner, Nova lists the various technologies he believes Web 3.0 will be comprised of:
- Cloud computing
- Open peer-to-peer grid storage, and computing capabilities on the Web
- Mobile Web
- Higher bandwidth, more storage, and more powerful processors empowering mobile devices
- Personalization
- Increase in the power of personalization tools and personal assistant tools
- Search
- Smarter search engines that not only answer questions, but will accept commands
- Data integration and portability
- Improvements in account portability, integration, and data between different Web applications
- Databases
- Fundamental change, moving away from the relational model and object model towards the associative model of data (graph databases and triple stores)
It's an interesting read, and he describe some great innovations. He's pretty passionate about Web 3.0.
It's too early for me to know how I'll feel about Web 3.0 in a year or even three years from now. I always like to keep my mind open about new ideas, even if I don't agree with them. In May 2006 Tim Berners-Lee said this about his idea of Web 3.0:
"People keep asking what Web 3.0 is. I think maybe when you've got an overlay of scalable vector graphics - everything rippling and folding and looking misty - on Web 2.0 and access to a semantic Web integrated across a huge space of data, you'll have access to an unbelievable data resource."
- Tim Berners-Lee; A 'more revolutionary' Web
His vision there isn't anything nearly like Nova's vision of Web 3.0, but Tim may have more to say on the topic. Web 3.0 seems to be just as ambiguous as Web 2.0, if not more so.
Nova, Yihong, and I have rather different views of what should become of Web 3.0. Nova is a true advocate of Web 3.0 and has many ideas that express his vision. He also closely ties Web 3.0 to the Semantic Web. Yihong doesn't agree that Web 3.0 should be associated with the Semantic Web and has a few ideas of what Web 3.0 will be. I consider myself mostly undecided, but I won't say I support it. I don't support Web versioning. What do you think about Web 3.0?
About the author
It's my goal to help bring about the Semantic Web. I also like to explore related topics like natural language processing, information retrieval, and web evolution. I'm the primary author of Semantic Focus and I'm currently working on several Semantic Web projects.
Trackback URL for this entry:
http://www.semanticfocus.com/blog/tr/id/989845/
Spam protection by Akismet
» Ten Web 3.0 Future Technologies For Techys
Tracked on September 26, 2007
Post a comment
Posted by james on September 25, 2007 at 7:56am
I agree that web versioning is just a way to 'talk' about the eras of evolution in web thinking and it's applications and such.
I do believe when a major change of the way things are done comes around you could move to call it the 'next one' or 'next version'. We're simply moving into a new era of computing. The web would be nothing without the external app's and languages. As they evolve into semantic realms, I do believe the entire web will feel the change.
I have a dream of the semantic web being more than just semantics. I want to integrate that amazing new idea with robotics and 'smart homes' and cars. The personal agent would be a slave to a more central, main persona that would end up being your 'best friend'.
Who knows if it's going to happen like that and if I will even be able to get funding to get on that train.........
Voice recognition is improving though.....
I really enjoy your site here....
Posted by Paul Miller on September 25, 2007 at 10:54am
James
I wonder if "Semantic Web" has attracted too many connotations of being slow to arrive, complex, an unrealistic panacea, etc; of being a researcher's plaything with little relevance to the 'real world' ?
As such, some more approachable label does create opportunities to generate traction, to draw attention, and to tell compelling stories.
Web 3.0 is one such possibility, and Nova's definition thereof, as a generational movement, would align the term with some *early* aspects of Semantic Web as they go mainstream in this decade. There's plenty more to come, though, and other things happening... so there may very well not be a one-to-one mapping between 'Web 3.0' and 'Semantic Web' in its pure sense.
'Web of Data'/ 'Data Web', etc work well too... and it was interesting to see Tim BL using similar terms a great deal during his W3C keynote this year...
'Semantic Web' as a marketing message may be one that has over-promised and under-delivered for too long... Which doesn't mean that the *essence* of Semantic Web technologies, approaches and aspirations aren't hugely valuable, hugely relevant and - increasingly - ready for the mainstream.
Posted by James on September 25, 2007 at 3:00pm
@James: That's an interesting idea about personal agents. I think semantic technologies will revolutionize many industries, and I suspect we will see them used in ways you mentioned.
@Paul: I've often thought about whether "the Semantic Web" has blown its chance in the minds of many people, simply because it really takes that long to create something this grand and ambitious.
Perhaps Web 3.0 is catching on because people can more easily connect with the idea of "the Web, version 3" than they can with "the Semantic Web." Honestly, I don't think there's a mainstream market for the term Semantics (mainstream being your everyday average Internet users). At least, not in this kind of society.
Posted by David Hopkins on September 30, 2007 at 9:43am
I think Web 3.0 will be compirsed of among other things:
*Scaleable HTML
*CSS 3
*SVG
*JavaScript 2
These technologies probably won't be widely available to use for five years/
Posted by Mihai Campean on October 1, 2007 at 3:29am
The Web 2.0 label was and still is marketing hype and I believe you are right about the pushing of Web 3.0. However, I don't think it matters how we label it, but one thing is certain: the web is ever evolving, and always there will be debates about labeling this evolution. So, for me, labels do not matter that much, the main point is the evolution and the vision of what is to come, but in order to sell the applications we build we do have to make use of all this hype around the labels.
Posted by Harry Roberts on October 1, 2007 at 10:57am
What annoys me the most out of everything Web 2.0/3.0 is the fact that people design a site, throw in a few gradients, vectors and glossy buttons, have no interactive functionality and call it a Web2.0 work.
Great article btw!
Harry.
Posted by brandonrichards on October 10, 2007 at 7:37am
Do we really think there will be a 'web' in 10 years like we have now?
Posted by James on October 10, 2007 at 8:24am
Yeah, I would think so. 10 years isn't as long as you're making it sound, you forget that Google is a decade old. Things simply don't change that rapidly. Now where's my jetpack... :)
Posted by Rolf Skyberg on October 10, 2007 at 9:55am
Recently in the Netherlands, I gave a presentation about Web 2.0 being an era, not a thing. When I finished someone asked me, "So what is Web 3.0? Is it the iPhone in my pocket with data available everywhere?" I asked him if he was excited about his iPhone and he said he was. I then told him that it wasn't Web 3.0 because the next jump is when we stop being excited by "the web" and just expect it like electricity in our walls.
My slides are available here: http://rolfskyberg.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/slide-deck-from-emerce-eday/
Posted by Smith on June 25, 2008 at 1:04pm
This content has been Agglom (erated) with other similar ones on http://www.agglom.com/agglom/82 - Web 3.0 - meaningless or future - What do you think about?