What is Digg?29 Comments
- input, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Link is to a blog which links to a wikipedia entry of the _definiton_ of "Web 3.0"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3.0 - Pattyo13, on 05/14/2009, -1/+7i've already got an app build for web 9.5, i'm just waiting for the rest of the world to catch up
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9* bangs head on desk *
***** this, I going to MySpace to get my Web 1.0 fix. - octopi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Why are we talking about Web 3.0 when Web 2.0 hasn't even fully penetrated the web yet?
- Pattyo13, on 05/14/2009, -1/+4^^ am i the only one annoyed by people like @Nougat above that reply to a topic that is totally unrelated just so their comment can be at the top. after all, having comments at the top, you're more likely to get more views, and more views gets you more votes. more votes makes you cooler, way cooler
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There seems to be a legitimate theoretical discussion behind this. Unfortunately, calling it Web 3.0 ties it to the mish mash of Web 2.0 garbage. Web 2.0 seems to be vaguely defined as an enhancement of social collaboration with the recent trend in the consolidation of traditional technology (e.g AJAX). If that sounds a bit self-contradictory, then you can see why people find Web 2.0 so vaguely defined. (That is, its a cheesy buzz word.) However, RDF and OWL--though they are a bit nebulous in their philosophical roots--are legitimate theoretical concepts. Hopefully, that means that if such things are ever implemented we won't be subjected to a lot of buzzword abuse (but, that's wishful thinking).
- Pharaoh777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here is a far more thorough link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3 - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good thoughts. Probably the smartest thing said on this thread thus far. FINALLY....a Digg user posting something intellectual and thought-provoking instead of the normal "can't wait for Web 17.0" comments.
- GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not quite. You're describing what should be called Web 2.0 retro. Eventually, someone will do a CSS3 tutorial on how to efficiently employ course blocky beveled buttons and bright clashing colors in the old way.
- mapkinase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You bet, it will change. First change should be "this article is a stub", because right now it does not have even that.
- halik, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4tagged as (blog) spam.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Web 3.0: Mind-reading Ajaxification with logos that have a mirror effect on the sides, as well as the bottom.
Oh, and talking about Web 4.0 - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think people would respond to "Web 2.0" better if it was named something different....people are taking it too literally.
ENOUGH of the lame "can't wait for Web 5.0" comments! - TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Web 2.0?? What a joke. It isn't anything different from what was available in Web 1.0 .. but Web 3.0 is actually an extension of the underlying web infrastructure, and has some guts behind it.
Its not just using AJAX (new buzzword, but tech that been around for quite some time), style sheets (again, nothing great here), rounded corners, pastel colours, and "reflaction" graphics (the blinking gif of the 21st century). - handle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Semantic Web never took off precisely *because* it required precise declaritive ontologies, and Web 2.0 is successful because it doesn't - it works with fuzzy tags - the way humans do.
Oh, that and there's never even nearly been a "Semantic Agent". - GnuTzu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"OWL"? What a hoot! (Just couldn't help myself.)
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, yea, I would definitely call Digg "vaporware"..........
- mjjack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Arghhhh! Do they have to call it that??? Why can't they just call it "semantic web" ???? Interesting technical ideas with potential to get lost in marketing hype.
- mjjack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And the original linked article suggests that the Web 3.0 article be merged with the previously linked Semantic Web article (previous post).
So what's the point?? - mlr263, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Web 2.0"... "Web 3.0"....
can anyone say "Vaporware" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Isn't it all just Web?
- goldenbb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As long as Web 3.0 is not otherwise known as Web with DRM and massive state censorship built in, I think we'll all be okay.
- spraguep, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4All this ***** makes my head hurt...
- osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It's like web 2.0, with a web 1.0 style - meaning we get rid of the blue/green motif that is soooo lame.
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4This may be the 100th thread I've seen you use the term "Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk" here.
I would Wikipedia it. - ech0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0this ***** is all the same. web 2 point who the ***** cares. technology will always evolve and new methods will arise, coining terms for the combination of technology is getting so annoying.
- justinjacobs, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10Heh, you said 'penetrated.' :)
- ritec, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I can't wait for web 5.0... it's when we realize it's all just web 1.0.
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5If Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk (which it does), I shudder to think what Web 3.0 will be. Perhaps next year's headlines will include: "Internet Admits That It's Just a Vanity Press."
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is