This is going on my monitor tomorrow

[andrewducker]

cheers to surliminal for that one.

Comments

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't really know. I generally laugh when I see articles talking about web 2.0 and by the time they talk about web 3.0 I'm wiping tears from my eyes. I think web 2.0 is websites with the letter "r" on the end of the name.

[andrewducker]

I could tell you what _I_ think the change from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 was - which was largely:
"static pages" -> "pages generated in realtime" (i.e. database-backed content management systems like LJ)
"Web sites as separate islands" -> "web sites bringing data together from numerous places" (i.e. things like RSS and XML data exchange meaning your data isn't locked up on one site)
"Updates that require page refreshes" -> "pages that can update their data in situ" (i.e. things like Google Calendar where you can drag/drop your entries and it updates without having to interrupt you)

People coming at it from different directions talk about the social side of the web, but I figure that small amounts of that have been going on from the very beginning - it's just that we hit a critical mass of it only in 2002/3-ish that meant that you could start to assume you'd find people you knew online rather than the opposite.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

I could post a ppt:-)

The consensus generally seems to be that web 3.0 is 3D / virtual world web 2.0.

In MIT I am told web 2.0 is SOOO last Tuesday.

[andrewducker]

Except that
(a)Virtual worlds are _not_ the web. They are other software also running on the internet.
(b)Who the hell wants to use a virtual world to buy a book, read LJ or listen to music?