i'm fluent in javascript as well as klingon.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

am i 2.0 or not 2.0?

a heaping helping of web2.0 op/ed blogged globs and talkbacks mashed up for your enjoyment:

Since when have version numbers ever made sense?

Memes are almost always "marketing hype" -- bumper stickers is a better way to say it -- but they tend to catch on only if they capture some bit of the zeitgeist.

There's a set of "Web 2.0 design patterns" -- architecting systems so that they get smarter the more people use them, monetizing the long tail via a combination of customer-self service and algorithmic management, lightweight business models made possible by cooperating internet services and data syndication, data as the "intel inside", and so on.

More immediately, Web 2.0 is the era when people have come to realize that it's not the software that enables the web that matters so much as the services that are delivered over the web.

You have to remember that every revolution occurs in stages, and often isn't recognized till long after the new world is in place.

While the patterns that constitute Web 2.0 are far from completely understood, there's a kind of intuitive recognition of sites that are expressing the new model.

I guess it's the old debate between language purists, and language pragmatists. The right words are the ones people actually use, and this word is catching on.

I just hope that Web 2.5 will be the time where standard HTML/CSS will be used and IE7.5 will follow W3C standards :-)

...what shifted my opinion of the meme from "hot air" to "something useful" was Ian Davis' suggestion that Web 2.0 is an attitude not a technology. It’s about enabling and encouraging participation through open applications and services. By open I mean technically open with appropriate APIs but also, more importantly, socially open, with rights granted to use the content in new and exciting contexts. Of course the web has always been about participation, and would be nothing without it. It’s single greatest achievement, the networked hyperlink, encouraged participation from the start. Somehow, through the late nineties, the web lost contact with its roots and selfish interests took hold. This is why I think the Web 2.0 label is cunning: semantically it links us back to that original web and the ideals it championed, but at the same time it implies regeneration with a new version. Technology has moved on and it’s important that the social face of the web keeps pace.

The problem with "Web 2.0" is that it has an amorphous definition and thus its definition includes everything and nothing, kinda like "SOA".

When I read blogs claiming that "Web 2.0" is primarily a label attached to the new generation of startups that are sexy to Silicon Valley VCs like Flickr or MySpace.com or Wikipedia definitions that claim that using CSS and semantic XHTML makes a site "Web 2.0" I can tell the term is already becoming meaningless.

The funny thing is that just like with SOA there is a germ of a good idea behind all the hype. The problem is having to shovel past all the BS to get to the useful nuggets of information.

I tend to think that an important part of web 2.0 is the blurring of the boundary between web site and web application. A site is an application, and its data is grist for other applications.

Well, per Tim and the del.icio.us feed, Web 2.0 is about social networking and AJAX and services and platforms and the long tail.

No comments: