Drawar

It's ambiguous and controversial. Specialists use it for RDF/OWL type services and protocols; public uses it more loosely. In either case, the specific implications and abilities are in themselves multilayered and 'versionable', if one is so inclined.

The best/most sensible definition, and the one I've seen the fewest people disagree with, is versioning in term of internet decades — we're slowly moving into the third:

Note that as well as mapping a possible future of the Web, here I am also proposing that the Web x.0 terminology be used to index the decades of the Web since 1990. Thus we are now in the tail end of Web 2.0 and are starting to lay the groundwork for Web 3.0, which fully arrives in 2010.

This makes sense to me. Web 2.0 was really about upgrading the "front-end" and user-experience of the Web. Much of the innovation taking place today is about starting to upgrade the "backend" of the Web and I think that will be the focus of Web 3.0 (the front-end will probably not be that different from Web 2.0, but the underlying technologies will advance significantly enabling new capabilities and features). [via Minding the Planet]

There's a nice graph that comes with his article. Using this definition then yes, it does make sense to speak of another level — but it's never a clear cut step! It's a gradual process; new features are created and incorporated as time goes on. There's no "Hah, web 3.0 has launched" — unless we're talking ONLY about the decades.

Two things to keep in mind:

1. Web 2.0 only came about because everything went to hell. The bubble was the catalyst for all these creatives to try new things and therefore land upon the current concept of Web 2.0
2. During Web 1.0 nobody mentioned anything about a Web 2.0. Sites just evolved so unless there is another bubble burst then I don't see Web 3.0 really happening since we will just continue to label what we are in as Web 2.0 until another dramatic change happens.

But I've been wrong before, like in '85.

The term "Web 3.0", just as "Web 2.0", is meant to hypothesize about a future wave of Internet innovation.

Emphasis mine. This is not true. Web 2.0 was used and explained after "Web 2.0" webservices existed. People trying to define Web 3.0 (or beyond) are just talking crap. I'd know, I'm one of them.

Sit back, enjoy what you've got, improve what you can and ignore the bullshitters.

The web currently sits at version 2.01467.
The 2.1034 beta should be available in the coming weeks.

No.

Goddamnit, no. Just stop it.

"Web 2.0" didn't mean anything (and many would say it still doesn't.) Trends happened. After the fact someone labeled them with a cutesy little vague moniker. It could have been "post-burst," or "post-dot-com," etc. The numbering is meaningless, if not outright misleading.

There were quite a few "versions" before "web 2.0." I'd probably put the 2.0 mark starting with mosaic 2.0.

So if we call what's next web 3.0 are we recognizing that web 2.0 was a bit of a mistake?

Ah, technical jargon.

He could be much more concise by saying he likes the way the web is going and sees a very bright future for it as it integrates more into our lives and societies.

Same thing, minus buzz words.

I agree with the cries of 'stop it'. Lets just stop the numeric madness and get about producing valid, solid applications that are innovative and grow with the new technologies. Web .anything is just marketing bottom feeding and we should all stop with the crazy. I think my head will explode if people start talking in wide numbers are web 3.0. 4.0. 5.0 to infinity.

I hate terms like this. Marketers love to use these "buzzwords" without any understanding of what they mean. I'd instinctively get them to give examples of Web3.0.

All too often people use bullshit terms like this in inteviews to sound impressive without "teh skillz to pay teh billz"

You know, I used to be totally excited about this whole "Web 2.0" and "Web 3.0" things and so on, but I realized that all it is, is just a buzzword for people to use as a marketing tool, and an excuse for people to attempt things design or development wise (which may not always be a bad thing).

As mentioned, I think it'd be the best for us to concentrate on developing awesome content, and designing with the best of our abilities to make everything as efficient as possible, easy to use, aesthetically pleasing (although, relative), and we'll just gradually fade into new stages of the web. We still don't know what discoveries people may learn of that'll change the way we work on the web!

You know, a while ago I actually forced myself to believe that Web 3.0 would be the age where all of our applications would be accessed online through the web, without ever having the need to install anything anymore. Haha. Although I believe that this specific stage will eventually be reached, it won't have a direct identifier (such as Web X.X).

I've been doing web design for a few years now, and now did I only start adapting these "fads" of styles, and ways of working on the web - and I really do love it! There are some amazing pierces of work out there. Staying up to date with all this stuff without having to rely on terminologies to describe what you're doing is the best way to be, I think. Hmm, and another thought: I guess it's not bad to keep track of the things we're doing by these kinds of terms - we just have to avoid things going overload. lol.

I've heard the term "Web 3.0" used in that context, but I really don't have much time for such marketing spiel. Applying version numbers to something as diverse as the Internet is absurd. It's best if we all just get on with delivering useful content and services.

"I've heard the term "Web 3.0" used in that context, but I really don't have much time for such marketing spiel. Applying version numbers to something as diverse as the Internet is absurd. It's best if we all just get on with delivering useful content and services."

In a nutshell!

Web 2.0 (I hate typing those words!) brought us fully interactive API's such as Flickr and del.ico.us and the drive towards using web standards. It got mixed up by many people who thought web 2.0 was all about reflective logos and rounded corners.

I think what is to come is the next big step towards a fully semantic web, it's what Tim Berners lee envisioned when he created the web. It's not going to arrive with a global fanfare like 'web 2.0' did although the marketing people will think otherwise.

It's already started, have you noticed how many images google's search engine pages are displaying when you do a search?

It's not going to arrive with a global fanfare like 'web 2.0' did although the marketing people will think otherwise.

I really hope not, because the Web 2.0 marketing fanfare was simply too ridiculous. I'm with Alex Hardy on this one... I think we all need to stop worrying about version numbers and get back to kicking ass and taking names on the web :)

Client: "I want a web 3.0 style website"

Me: (bangs head against table) :-)