What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
This Game Sucks view!
threadless.com - Grab this epic gaming tee for only $12 during the Threadless Holiday Sale!
50 Comments
- falafelkiosken, on 06/13/2009, -1/+30where can you download the latest web? link plz
- MyNameIsJoe, on 06/13/2009, -2/+30A buzz word.
- SixChamber, on 06/12/2009, -1/+21Keep in mind there are two different concepts in play. The article is theorizing that Rich Snippets could help push the internet into the realm of the Semantic Web, which is not a marketing term, but an official term from the W3C. The Semantic Web is a potential component of Web 3.0.
For those who are interested in learning more about the Semantic Web see the Introduction from the W3C: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ - INTERNETMASTER, on 06/13/2009, -4/+22really, we never even saw Web 2.5 and they're already jumping to 3.0? really this is
Web 2.152.10108c more than anything - Roundbadge, on 06/12/2009, -0/+16This is neither a "security nightmare" (atroxodisse - did you really read the article?) or a "new marketing term" - Google is only pushing towards the use of semantic markup with RDFa or Microformats, and are announcing that if you ie. mark up reviews, persons etc. with Microformats mark up, they can do something "extra" with this data, termed "rich snippets".
And I think it's awesome news for Microformats - I've been hoping for this for Microformats for a long time, and Google announcing that they will now recognize and use Microformatted data is fantastic! - yocouchdigga, on 06/12/2009, -1/+10but I was just getting used to today's internet, Google!
>_< - BrandonJM, on 06/12/2009, -15/+24Not digging on principle: I really don't want to see a new marketing term get crowned (Web 3.0). Web 2.0 was stupid and inaccurate enough.
- jjsavage81, on 06/13/2009, -4/+11Oh goody, the semantic web is only 2 years away! Just like it was 2 years away in 2006, and 2004, and 2002, and 2000, and...
- s0krat3z, on 06/13/2009, -2/+8What would you call a shift to user driven content among other less important aspects of a WWW that is evolving in Internet years. Sure people took it and made it into a marketing term but to information scientists there really has been a major step. Although I think it is a little early to be talking about Web 3.0, there are some interesting things in the works. With the Semantic Web the WWW will take steps toward a smarter Web in the years to come.
- HonoredMule, on 06/13/2009, -0/+6"What would you call a shift to user driven content?"
I would call it "the internet." Web 2.0 was just a revival of those same values. All we're seeing is a waxing and waning of growth phases, between "users as producers" and existing commercial operations asserting themselves onto new tech trends or new ones growing out of producer-users.
The internet has always been at its core foundation a tool for bi-directional communication. Over time, new layers of abstraction make make its present-day use more accessible to the common man in a fashion that mirrors every other growing technology or field/profession, while professionals forge the next layer of abstraction or high-level use, powering the steady swing of a pendulum between those two growth phases: improved usability/accessibility and more widespread use. - MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/13/2009, -3/+8It's a marketing term for the group of the webs biggest companies to try to sell their services as brand new again.
Once web 2.0 fever dies down, and the companies want to attract new business, they'll start using the term web 3.0 until it gets old and move to 4.0 etc. - treelovinhippie, on 06/13/2009, -0/+4It's good and all that Google has started to use some of the semantic web standards, but they're still ***** things up with this feature release: http://iandavis.com/blog/2009/05/googles-rdfa-a-da ...
"At first this announcement seemed like a big deal – Google supporting the web of data in a big way, a real push into the world of open structured data. However, a closer look reveals that Google have basically missed the point of RDFa. The RDFa support is limited to the properties and classes defined on a hastily thrown together site called data-vocabulary.org. There you will find classes for Person and Organization and properties for names and addresses, completely ignoring the millions of pieces of data using well established terms from FOAF and the like. That means everyone has to rewrite all their data to use Google’s schema if they want to be featured on Google’s search engine. Its like saying you have to write your pages using Google’s own version of html where all the tags have slightly different spellings to be listed in their search engine!" - J0415, on 06/13/2009, -1/+4plz seed
- inactive, on 06/13/2009, -3/+6What is Web 3.0?
- matrixbandit, on 06/13/2009, -0/+3I wouldn't mind "Web x.0" if we were at least given a changelog.
- KibibyteBrain, on 06/13/2009, -0/+2The first exposure most people have had to wide network communications with computers was the BBS. The BBSes were almost totally user driven. Some of the first killer apps for the web were web forums, and before them were newsgroups which were also strong. Some of Yahoo!'s main offerings when it was a powerhouse web portal were its groups and other interactive features.
The only real change in "web 2.0" is now there are many easy to use frameworks and CMSes that let "mere mortals" do this sort of thing. Its always been there. - termerjur, on 06/13/2009, -2/+4For the first time I think I have a better inkling of how Web 3.0 is being equated with The Semantic Web. Not that hard to grasp really - uh...the notion of a search engine identifying and arranging content according to context? Wait...what? Crap now I'm not sure again.
I thought the 3D Web or Second Life was more of a 3.0 thing! I can see how some people are just annoyed because the searching and sorting of text and 2D images seems like just more of the same but more efficient or clever which lends some weight to it just being a gimmick to hype new Web 1.0 notions. But I don't agree with this view. It seems to me social networking platforms describe Web 2.0 pretty well (a level of interactivity that Web 1.0 didn't have?)...but then again some people tell me that's bull crap too!
I like the idea of the 3D Web...buuuut some people positively hate it. Too "artsy fartsy" they assert and not at all interesting.
Aspirin anyone?
- s0krat3z, on 06/13/2009, -0/+2I think you are confusing the Internet with the WWW. WWW is only a part of the Internet. In fact Web applications can exist on other networks completely separate from the Internet. The transition is not a sharp one like the rolling out of the next version of Windows. In the early days the Web was static HTML.
- mikemehak, on 06/13/2009, -2/+4I'm dreading this Web 3.0
Because a lot of the websites I like are on the old Web, so this means I need to have TWO internets. Which is another monthly fee that I don't need to contend with.
But further more, i will probably need a second modem and a second network card. This is a LOT of extra work and probably software. Then there will be compatibility issues.
You probably won't be able to surf TWO different internets at once because it will confuse the browser.
I hate Web 3.0, it's just too much work!
/s - keyo, on 06/13/2009, -0/+2A concept. Specifically the ability to automatically pull and push data between websites with RDFa etc.
So it is a really useful thing, unfortunately coined by some stupid name.
Before I looked up what web 2.0 was I though it was some kind of secret other internet for cool people only. Next thing you know designers will be associating "three point oh" with a particular visual style. - ginestony, on 06/13/2009, -1/+2meh.
- shinkou, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1World Wide Web = Great Stuff
Web 2.0 = Huh?
Web 3.0 = WTF? - lorddazzer, on 06/13/2009, -1/+2Yay the 1million-and-oneth word!
- HonoredMule, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1It seems like there ought to be a prominent version entry for fixing the initial lack of congestion control in TCP that crippled the internet in its early stages of exponential growth.
- svivian, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1No, it's one more than Web 2.0.
- atroxodisse, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1Shoulda hit the reply button...was referring specifically to the idea of the semantic web and the possibility of my bank sharing my info with my calendar program for example.
- Eorster, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1This has been talked about for many years. And will remain a niche concept with little basis in reality for many years to come. None the less I would use the semantic web moniker for marketing just like the rest of them.
- Philbert, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1I don't know about Snippets, but Wave looks very cool.
- keyo, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1I'm liking where this is going. There are already services like Calais that can contextualize content.
Paste some wikipedia text into http://viewer.opencalais.com/ , all the keywords are identified to their correct vocabulary (places, names, products). Your CMS can use this service to markup content correctly and provide serach engines with properly defined data. - keyo, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1oops, try http://viewer.opencalais.com
- DeanMix1234, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1All the wave launch does is combines individual products as one bundle. Seriously, what is so innovative about it?
- N01SE, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1Wow, first off, buzz words can go suck a duck. Furthermore, understand that a semantic web implies using appropriate markup for data, that is something a developer must do when coding markup, and many developers still do not do it correctly, thus much of the proliferation for the semantic web is in the hands of thousands of developers, not search engines. How will any machine learning algorithm identify improperly marked-up data without user feedback? It's one thing to compute term-document similarity and a popularity rank, those are quantitative, but here the algorithm would have to assume that what is tagged is in fact what is represented in the data tagged, not true, as most of the web is a ***** of *****. <sarcasm>Maybe Google will properly markup the entire web</sarcasm>.
- Atomic1fire, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1web 0.5
added graphics, removed bugs from worldwideweb
web 1.0
plugin support, netscape, internet explorer support
web 2.0
ajax, rounded corners, UGC - Myztry, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1You don't trust Google? What, to look after your best interests? They're not the executor of your estate or anything.
The idea of 'trust' in a company is just foolish. Companies are many just a collection of swap who swap between companies. What matters most is the intent of the company and how they relates to you.
Google focuses on data collecting, connecting and immersion. A fairly benign focus - while it is moderated by the "don't be evil" motto.
Microsoft is more like it's current CEO and longtime marketer who resembles nothing less than a car salesman. It has no real interest other than screwing you on a product, and making you dependent for parts, payments, etc.
On track record alone - Microsoft looses the battle of trust dismally. It has no motto. Only greed. - Roundbadge, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1Yes - should've used the reply button, sorry 'bout that. As to your answer, fair enough; but I still don't see the "security nightmare". Privacy concerns perhaps.
- fragMasterFlash, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1Bill Gates tried and failed to push the whole 'agents' concept from the very start of the .NET craze. Maybe it was dilution of hanging the .NET moniker on every single MSFT product from 2001 - 2003 that killed it for them, but I don't see Google stepping up with the same level of media blitz that MSFT did (prime time informercials with Bill opining about how agents were going to revolutionize the way we turn information into knowledge). Maybe if Apple got behind this concept and blessed it as being cool enough for Steve Jobs then the masses would buy into it.
- Atomic1fire, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1I would say the internet improved over steps,
step one was the basis, with growth of the sharing of information and use of the internet as a commercial tool for advertising.
step two was the introduction of plugins, and the increase in animation and content delivery,
step three was the increase in user generated content, and the mobile web.
step four will be likely be the advent of html 5, and the increased support of openstandards and the sharing of information in realtime. - Rassa, on 06/13/2009, -0/+1Google is one awesome advertising company. Is it a goal as an advertising company to try and fool the public that you are not an advertising company? It seems like a brilliant strategy.
I'm sure the Google faithful will digg me down for saying anything that might be negative about Google. I just don't trust them. - keyo, on 06/13/2009, -1/+1I'm pretty sure Google et al can determine if you're keyword stuffing etc. There is a service called open calais that can search plain text and associate words with vocabularies. If calais does it google probably does. For example the spider might run a google maps check on an element with place vocabulary.
Go paste some text in to this thing, it's quite clever. http://www.opencalais.com/ - Myztry, on 06/13/2009, -1/+1I like the idea of the web using semantic tags, as long the the SEO (Search Engine Optimisers) can't abuse it simply by lying about what the content actually refers too. It's a good idea to have complex data describe in a standardized format.
In a way it's like stepping back to, or catching up with IFF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_File_Form ... where there was only the one file that could contain complex data types with descriptive metadata. The idea was also copied by Microsoft (RIFF as used in AVI's), Apple (AIFF and used for sound) and others (MP3 ID tags).
There are also uses that the 'powers' aren't going to like. Links to music files for example could be supplemented with P2P hashes, so even it the hosted file is removed, the browser would still have the means to obtain it. All sorts of information could be enriched. Mere numbers that correlate to someone instant messenger number could be marked as what they are, and the browser could fetch their online status. That showing up in generic search results, I'm not so enthusiastic about though.
The semantic web doesn't in anyway constitute Web 3.0 but it should be an interesting sub-phase of the web's evolution regardless. - Myztry, on 06/13/2009, -1/+1Hmmm... I'm not quite just where I'm supposed to be pasting text. The in-site search?
Tried merely searching for Google, and noticed they have word wrapping issues in those results. Followed the results like and they just seemed to be forums.
Really not sure what you where getting at, and I wasn't about to go signing up for API registration to seek further. - yerdaddy, on 06/13/2009, -2/+2Blow your web versions and seismic shifts out your ear.
- njb444, on 06/14/2009, -0/+0I don't get it...
- falafelkiosken, on 06/13/2009, -2/+2or maybe web 4.0, who knows?
- kolyanych30, on 07/29/2009, -0/+0so, what is web 3.0?
- factsahoy, on 06/13/2009, -0/+0Nothing, just like "Web 2.0".
- factsahoy, on 06/13/2009, -1/+0Yes, the era of asinine, ***** terms keeps rolling on.
- Albumen, on 06/13/2009, -3/+2It's one better isn't it?
- geewillie86, on 06/13/2009, -1/+0Web 3.0? There really are many internets!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is