What's in a name? The term Web 2.0 was never really intended to be a formal definition. In relation to the first generation of static HTML websites, one could see rather intuitively the direction that web 2.0 was taking. Tim O'Reilly widely cited mememap and definition helped a lot.
Since then, we have come to know Web 2.0 applications as online architectures supporting to different degrees open, interconnecting functionalities, more popularly known as ‘social networks’. The transition to Web 3.0 is even less clear cut, and using the term Web 3.0 interchangeably with the term 'semantic web' makes things even more confusing. Let's take a look at what these expressions really mean, and let's see if we an learn how to use them appropriately.
It's all about relations
Beware of the Happy Semantic Bandwagon
Confusion has its costs, and it is likely to generate scores of profits for those who are in the business of Selling 'solutions'. They have no intention of shedding clarity, dispel myths about the semantic web, otherwise they would make no money. When considering migrating to semantic architectures, make sure you do not necessarily listen to every researcher, faculty, consortia and their industry partners who are all trying to capitalize on the general lack of understanding of semantics. After over a decade of ignoring or even criticising and attacking the semantic web, many are trying to capitalize on its renewed charm. Semantic capabilities, with a few exceptions such as skills acquisition and high end software packages which are worth their salt, are intrinsically about exposing and linking data. That is likely to require a lot of rethinking, of the kind that money cannot buy. Beware of semantic vapourware currently being aggressively pushed to markets worldwide as semantic technology.
Give your story premium visibility!