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
- The NFL is taking the Internet seriously
- Hurricane Gustav, political obsessions, and Hulu surfing
- TechCrunch redesigns: over undesigned?
- A personal take on Technorati’s acquisition of Blogcritics
- Imagine an Amazon Kindle with Shelfari-like features
- CNN.com offers embed code for video
- ESPN to live stream baseball, and the Mad Dog moves to Sirius Satellite Radio
- On the interwebs, simpler and smaller equals better
- Top online news destination: MSNBC
- Why would a Fox News SVP call Facebook “the leading social network”?
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/