Web 3.0 - Attention Management
I've written a few times about Web 3.0 before. I have been pretty dismissive to say the least. The definitions keep shifting and none of them particularly convince me that the paradigm change is sufficient enough to justify a version number change.
In recognition of that confusion, there has been a fun competition run by Read/Write Web for a one line description. As part of the converage, James Brown claims that Web 3.0 is actually about better metadata and smart agent-side filtering.
As an example - he cites Particls:
I do think that intelligent filtering on the agent-side is important (what a surprise hey!) but I am not sure it's called web 3.0. It's called Personalized Aggregation, or Personal Relevancy or Attention Management - and it can fit neatly into the current web.
And next... it needs to move into Media 2.0
In recognition of that confusion, there has been a fun competition run by Read/Write Web for a one line description. As part of the converage, James Brown claims that Web 3.0 is actually about better metadata and smart agent-side filtering.
As an example - he cites Particls:
"But perhaps the next step is for it to analyse attention data, like which articles I delete and which I click through; then apply some clever filters appropriately. It looks like Google is on the way to doing this.
And then there's tools like Particls. Formerly called Touchstone, this is a "personalised news and alert service" which monitors the internet, your feeds and other information like your calendar and emails, learns which are important to you, and alerts you in different ways according to their importance."
I do think that intelligent filtering on the agent-side is important (what a surprise hey!) but I am not sure it's called web 3.0. It's called Personalized Aggregation, or Personal Relevancy or Attention Management - and it can fit neatly into the current web.
And next... it needs to move into Media 2.0
Labels: APML, attention, filtering, Media 2.0, web 2.0, web 3.0
3 Comments:
Historians traditionally define a period in history, well after it has occurred. For example, what we call that 1,123 year old Byzantine empire - was known as the 'Roman Empire' to it's inhabitants. You can't define an era before it's even started - leave that to the historians!
However if web3.0 is meant to represent the next generation/period of innovation/bubble of the web, then in my eyes it is the semantic web. Web1.0 was about the creation of the web and web2.0 is about front-end innovation (which is stating to look repetitive now - innovation there has hit a wall IMHO). Therefore, web3.0 is about back-end innovation - which has largely gone untouched.
The internet, and the web as we know it, is more like in 0.2 beta than 2.0 - there is still so much to go. Structuring all that unstructured information so that machines can read it - the opportunities that creates once we have a web like that is mind boggling.
Semantic information is not just a better way of filtering; it's something that will transform how things are done on the net.
Elias, personally, I do not agree with you that "web 2.0 is about front-end innovation".
Web 2.0 to me, is the semantec web. It has been shaped by an increasing population of net-citzens and their desire to be heard. It is about lowering the barrier to self-expression and communication - something which can not be done without advances to the rear-end of things - we couldnt have sites like blogger and typepad.
This being said, I completely agree with you that definitions should be left to the historians. ;)
Hi Chris, everyone,
Thanks for the mention!
Just wanted to qualify my writing a little - I wasn't claiming that "web 3.0" is about meta-data and attention management. Rather, I was responding to Laura Cohen's suggestion that if read/write web's winning definition was prophetic, a useful tool to come out of it would be a very sophisticated RSS reader.
And my response was: those sophisticated RSS readers are already on their way - hence the link to particls! So either 3.0 is already here in this guise, or it's about something else.
However, this also being said, I completely agree with both of you about leaving definitions to historians! great point :D
James Brown
Post a Comment
<< Home