Recently in definitional Category

How many Web 2.0 applications are truly monetizing at a level that makes their businesses stand (financially) on their own? I have been thinking of how to define Web 3.0 in relation to Web 2.0 (I know there are many people who would either put 3 into 2.0, or deny Web 3.0 to begin with). Here's an answer, based on a very fruitful conversation with the folks at Peer 39:

Web 3.0 is/will REALLY monetize Web 2.0. Hear me right: I am not saying 2.0 is useless, it's quite useful actually, and I don't think 3.0 could really be successful on a grand scale without 2.0. Because 2.0 has provided access to data without which 3.0 cannot exist (of course we can all put semantic metadata on the entire Internet, but who will do that?).

Web 2.0 is great because it provides the data pool; I'm not so sure it will stand financially in and on its own; 3.0 is about developing smart apps that will do something to that data (more than "SELECT WHERE" and cool mashups that is). I mean, apps that will use this data to derive information/new data/ that was not there before; this is what I mean by Web 3.0 = web of serendipity.

That is, if Web 2.0 is 1 + 1 = 2, Web 3.0 = 1 + 1 =3. What do you think?

As promised, I hereby am starting the LIST of Web3.0 definitions.

1. "Web 3.0 will complete my sentences. It will think ahead of me. In a sense, it will think for me. For example, if I write "I like..." a web 3.0 app will complete my sentence with "...big butts and I cannot lie." (Josh, from ReadWriteWeb's "What Is Web 3.0" contest held at Web 2.0 Expo last year, What is Web 3.0? - this one actually received an award for Humorous definition);

(I will keep this list open, and will in the next few days semanticize this post to open it up to outside comments/data). Until then, use the Reblog button at the end of the post or add your comment.

I have been constantly checking the blogosphere, press, discussions with various execs and technology experts on how they describe "Web 3.0". This by the way, relates to my earlier "Semantic Identity Crisis" post. I think it's time to give ourselves a homework:

Web 3.0 is for Web 2.0 what _______________ is for ___________________!

I would like to hear from you. In the next few days, I will open the fields above and connect my blog's backend to compose a tag/"Web 3.0 definition" tagcloud, to help my librarian interest in assembling what the public understands this term to be/should be. For now, the link above connects to my personal email, where you can send me your thoughts.

By the way, another avenue to do the same (but with more "coolness" in it), will be at the Web 3.0 Conference & Expo next month in Santa Clara, where the General Session: Venture Panel will include t-shirts, Sharpies, and bodily expression (on t-shirts designed as notebook paper) of your own thoughts. More on this later, but the idea is to galvanize and organize public commentary about it, in an effort to define ourselves in 25 words or less. Basically, if we can't express what Web 3.0 is/should be on a t-shirt, we won't be able to express that to either VC's, or the userbase at large.

Clearly, the semantic web/Web 3.0 has started to spill from the academic drawing boards into the mainstream. If you don't believe me, here's two pieces of proof: Entrepreneurs See a Web Guided by Common Sense article in New York Times about two years ago was the first sign of "mainstreaming" it; the second, just a few months ago in The Economist: The Semantic Web | Start Making Sense. We've gone a long way, baby!

The last, and most clearly strongest sign of this being the case is represented by Jason Calacanis's post from last year Web 3.0, the "official" definition. I will tell you why, and where I'm headed with this.But first, a word from the last:

"Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform"

I think the quote above clearly emphasizes a symptom for any meme, technology, "current" moving from toddler-stage to the early teens: identity crisis. By its being overbroad (by the way, logically speaking, this is a definitional fallacy), it shows the stage we are in right now. If I didn't know better and read the quote above, I would not have a single clue as to what Web 3.0 is.

Now, one of the reasons I am putting together the Web 3.0 Conference & Expo in October in Santa Clara, CA is because I am in search of, and need for an identity. I've been a long time evangelist, lover, and currently entrepreneur of Web 3.0, and am still amazed of how many people, companies declare themselves being "web 3.0", "semantic", etc. Of course that is a teenage identity crisis symptom, of course: the moment a meme hits the mainstream fan, everyone else adopts the tune. Shall I give examples? Alrighty then: try going to Crunchbase and enter "semantic" in the search field, then if you truly know what a semantic-based technology "smells" like, find out how many companies are listed that have nothing to do with 3.0. I won't name names because I am trying to make a point.

I think this causes a both a problem and an opportunity: the problem is that by being under-critical of who gets the name "semantic", we are deepening confusion among media tech pundits, VC's, consumers, ourselves. It dillutes the core what Web 3.0 is purported to be.

The opportunity? It shows we're long overdue for solving some definitions. We need for Web 3.0 a definition just as well embedded as O'Reilly's is for Web 2.0 (What Is Web 2.0?). This will serve as first medicinal step before we can successfully "sell" the 3.0 dream to the public at large.

Because of this, I have decided that once every couple posts, I will transform into a librarian for 3.0 (isn't Library Science the grandmother of Knowledge Representation, taxonomies, etc. anyway?), start collecting quotes from blogs, corporate and personal sites, articles, on what folks think Web 3.0 or semantic applications are. I am also accepting quotes here, so I need some help:

What is Web 3.0? How do you recognize a Web 3.0 company when you see one?

Is it because it uses: natural language processing? Ontologies? Reasoners? Logic? Machine Learning? Both logic and machine intelligence? Intelligent applications? How intelligent?

A good place to start is on the Wikipedia article on Web 3.0 and a decent beginning is in Nova Spivack's Making Sense of the Semantic Web. But how do we become clearer?

Should we care? Here's one smart answer: Guy Kawasaki on why he hates Web 3.0 monikers. I think we need the moniker for marketing purposes but only if we can do a decent job explaining it. In the end, we all want good product that makes our life easier, whether it's 2.5, 3, 3.4 or not.

Therefore I challenge you to tell me and show me: what do YOU think Web 3.0 is/should be?