The first time the discussions about web 3.0 surfaced on the internet it was not earlier than three years ago and even then there were many different versions predicting what web 3.0 represents. With three years passed the situation did not change, except that new versions might have been added. From a personal perspective, the situation with web 3.0 might seem better than with web 2.0, in terms that the latter is still discussed regarding its definition, while web 3.0 is already taking a certain form. This paper is a discussion of web 3.0 in terms of its perspective, analyzing the question of whether the currently known characteristics entitle it to carry the number 3.0 in the designation.
First of all, without going into details, it should be established what web 3.0 is all about and in what way it will differ from its predecessor, web 2.0. The main differences can be summarized through the terms ‘semantic web’, i.e. “web content generated by semantic technologies” (Hoover, 2009), where computers will be able to recognize and read the web pages through metadata, and “a set of standards that turns the Web into one big database” (Metz, 2007)
In general, the idea seems prospective, where for example, it is known that Google News is already using similar technology to publish stories ranked by computers as the best. (Hoover, 2009) Thus, it is a set of technologies and languages which will be available for designers to create their websites already marked with specific metadata. Nevertheless, if taking a long perspective, what was the main feature of web 2.0 that distinguished it from web 1.0? It was the ability for the users through back-end technology to produce content and manipulate the links between their materials and the materials of other users. In that regard, it might be assumed that such freedom was lacking to an extent that in the next generation part of this ability was transferred to the machines.
Accordingly, the difference might be seen in that WebPages will include metadata that will be defined by humans, and thus the technology will be vulnerable to manipulation. The difference will be that the content will be manipulated by web creators and professionals rather than the users. In such a way, it might be assumed that such a step was taken due to the certain boom in web 2.0 projects that were low quality and a lot of them were used for spamming. Nevertheless, there might be some skepticism in regard to the amount of efforts needed to re-encode the existing WebPages, where “a complete reannotation of the Web is a massive undertaking.” (Metz, 2007)
Additionally, it might be argued whether the new addition, in terms of metadata, is worthy of a new number in the web 3.0 designation. Taking into consideration that the points of contrast that distinguish web 3.0 from 2.0 are almost the same that distinguished 2.0 From 1.0, it is more logical to call the new version Semantic web, rather than web 3.0 which implies a more distinguishable step forward. (O’Reilly, 2007)
It can be concluded that web 3.0 has a perspective, at least on paper and through the implementation of such web giants as Yahoo, Google and Microsoft. With a massive implementation, the results might vary, not to say that they will take time. The problem in designation, whether the specifications deserve the number 3.0 or not, is a debatable issue especially considering that web 2.0 definition still varies through different resources. The positive thing is that the implementation of new technologies does not eliminate the possibility for the older ones to exist, and in that regard, the designation might be revised in the future resulting in the web 2.5 concepts.
References
Hoover, L. (2009). Semantic technology pulls a gun on the blogosphere. Computer World. Web.
Metz, C. (2007). Web 3.0.PCMAG.com.
O’Reilly, T. (2007). Today’s Web 3.0 Nonsense Blogstorm.