Web 3.0?

What separates Web 3.0 from 2.0?

Well here are a few thoughts. I can’t get as into the tech stuff a la O’Reilly so I am not touching BitTorrent (whatever that is).

Web 1.0	Web 2.0	Web 3.0
Ofoto ->	Flickr ->	incorporated into Facebook page!
mp3.com ->	Napster ->	iTunes, YouTube
personal websites ->	blogging ->	Facebook or MySpace
stickiness->	syndication->	synergy (?)

1. Conglomeration. Everything interconnected. It’s not so much about a blog and a photo site and etc. It’s about one site that holds all your stuff.

2. Standard bearer? Facebook et al. (Primarily Facebook though.) Forget Netscape and Google. The interactive personalizable sites are the future with all their apps. (If “apps” is the term I want for “applications.”

O’Reilly wrote this in 2005? For the tech industry, that’s approximately equivalent to twenty years of politics.

Click here for a video on Facebook vs. MySpace spoofing the Mac vs. PC ads.

Eric Schmidt: "But if I were to guess what Web 3.0 is, I would tell you that it's a different way of building applications... My prediction would be that Web 3.0 will ultimately be seen as applications which are pieced together. There are a number of characteristics: the applications are relatively small, the data is in the cloud, the applications can run on any device, PC or mobile phone, the applications are very fast and they're very customizable. Furthermore, the applications are distributed virally: literally by social networks, by email. You won't go to the store and purchase them... That's a very different application model than we've ever seen in computing." (May 2007)

Footnoting hypertext

honestly now - have you ever read more absurd stuff in your life than bahktin? well except for foucault - and what is this “the juxtaposition of Dostoevsky's world with Einstein's world is, of course, only an artistic comparison and not a scientific analogy” – whhhhat – not scientific - and he just had to bring up Saussure when you know i hate -

oh wait i’m ehrengard

the political cage of language - social/political repercussions for every word we use. the network – this makes so much sense to a student of literature – especially of early modern drama – but also applies to, for example, politics

(btw am having my 104 class read Cixous, Zizek, Baudrillard right now – it was Aquinas, Descartes, Konrad Lorenz, Antonio Damasio the last two weeks)

we had to read patchwork girl (the hypertext novel) for my THE NOVEL class in college (right next to War and Peace and Dangerous Liaisons). really good attempt but complete failure. fiction is already hypertextual by nature - i wonder why fiction doesn’t play well with online hypertext? -

hypertext online works for nonfiction really well (see any online newspaper like Time or the New York Times, or a blog like The Huffington Post or The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan)

i guess you can’t separate style from genre (“The Problem of Speech Genres,” pg. 65). Hypertext in fiction is real, concrete, not a function – not something you have to link to – it’s the footnotes to The Waste Land not hyperlinks – come to think of it hyperlinks could substitute for footnotes quite well huh as in this link.