Josh Catone over at ReadWriteWeb once again writes about Web 2.0, Web 3.0 and the versioning of the Web, and argues that it really doesn't matter, it's "just the web." He also checked up on what Tim O'Reilly has said previously about Web 2.0 and Web 3.0, and found that O'Reilly's current Web 2.0 definition now incorporates his previous as well as other's Web 3.0 definitions! In other words, as Josh writes:
But in reality, I think O'Reilly is saying that the versioning doesn't really matter -- the web is the web.
Josh is also kind enough to link to my post about Web 3.0 definitions in the past. Here's my comment to Josh's article:
I agree there's just the Web. Problem is, if you just say the Web, ordinary people, who might have heard of Web 2.0 as the next big thing, might think you are behind the curve. Similarly, if you say Web 3.0, people might think you are ahead. So, from a marketing point of view the versioning of the Web is probably here to stay, until we come up with a better name.
What was good about the expression Web 3.0, especially last year, was that it was fairly new and caused a lot of controversy as soon as it was mentioned. Today I feel that there is a "Web 3.0 fatigue" in the same way that we have a Facebook fatigue (I hope that I am wrong here )
Maybe it is time to throw Web 3.0 in the Deadpool, and come up with some new controversial expression that annoys enough of people, so we get some great discussions. Robert Scoble once suggested Web 2007, which obviously is inadequate today, but perhaps a code name instead of a number, like Web Zebra or something. Probably this is too confusing, so we'll be better off just sticking to Web 3.0.