| Every time I see Web 3.0 I cringe. The article starts off with a history lesson that is outright wrong. It's like they didn't know what Web 2.0 actually was so decided rather than research, to just make something up. Then base their web 3.0 definition on a faulty 1.0 and 2.0 definition. You are not Tim O'Reilly or Tim Berners Lee. You can't just make versioning for the web. Web 2.0 was popularized by Tim O'Reilly and the only reason it caught on is because O'Reilly media started putting the name on major conferences. Spending a lot of money and resources on the branding and lobbying to make O'Relly a thought leader in the space not just a blog post. I know, I was there, right in the main auditorium of the Web 2.0 Summit watching the biggest names in tech speak. It had nothing to do with modem speed. It had more to do with Javascript becoming main stream. To vastly oversimplify: Web 1.0 = Static documents and basic server-side business logic Web 2.0 = Dynamic documents with Ajax and interactive page elements* - called RIAA (Rich Internet Applications) or recently SaaS Web 3.0 = Either the Semantic Web (giving meaning to web content), SPA (Single Page Applications), decentralized web, or blockchain. Depending on who you talk to. Really depending on which industry the person you are talking to wants to promote as the next big thing. The point is, there is no definition of web 3.0 and there won't be. No one person has the right to version the Internet. Because the web is not one single thing anymore. And that's OK. I just wish people would stop trying to call it that. * Plus fewr letter "e" before "r", baby blue and/or pink logos, star burst graphics, and mirror images bellow graphics The Semantic Web never really caught on (though you can still go to Meetups at MIT to discuss it every month) but some of the key concepts did carry over, like having elements in your XML (HTML) that convey the meaning of what is inside. Edit: Changed "coined" to "popularized"... O'Reilly as not the first to use the term. |