The Web 3.0 Definition Counter-Revolution Begins In Earnest
There’s lots of strong negative reaction amongst the blogospheric pontificators this morning (including some I have great respect for such as Mathew Ingram and Fred of A VC) to a Jason Calacanis piece entitled Web 3.0, the official definition.
I wrote a piece this morning supporting the definition and in fact saw nothing remotely controversial in it.
Here’s what I just commented on Ingram’s story:
Are people becoming too concerned with the *semantics* web?
I understand that Mr. Calacanis excels at drumming up controversy and blogospheric conversations, but I’m surprised at the reactions to this.
Maybe I’m just more comfortable with throwing loose labels around than others, but I see zero that’s controversial in Jason’s definition, and in fact think it’s right on. Web technology is more or less commoditized today, therefore the best ideas and execution of those ideas will tend to win out over the next few years. That’s my take as well.
Now, maybe the semantic web (or the “whatever web”) will be Web 3.0 *or* Web 4.0 or whatever, but does that really matter?
Sure, Jason’s “official” definition is a bold assertion, and of course the story that he’s preaching will make room for Mahalo’s (Calacanis’ latest project) success, but who cares?
Recent Entries
- Online Media Cultist honored by The Industry Standard
- Grand Theft Auto IV – Xbox 360 / Playstation 3 side-by-side review
- There’s a lot going on with the Interwebs, and that’s a good thing
- The rambling shambling social networking funhouse that is MySpace
- Are social news sites like Digg useful anymore?
- Could Google Friend Connect be a MySpace killer?
- How will Twitter ever make money?
- Google Earth comes to life-like
- Grand Theft Auto IV goes very very old school
- Gadgets threaten the Internet’s future? Ridiculous
October 5th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Eric,
You have to have a revolution first for their to be a counter-revolution. All I saw in Calacanis’ statement was a jargon-laced banality about web use. Try re-reading the core of it with the jargon stripped out:
“[The web] is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using [web] technology as an enabling platform.”
To paraphrase Gertrue Stein, “there is no ‘there’ there.” I think he acknowledges as much and hints at his self-serving intention with all this in this pithy post:
http://www.calacanis.com/2007/10/04/its-cant-be-this-easy-can-it/