WebN

<= o:p>

W= EB 1.0

T= his was the initial Web/Internet revolution. Two main outcomes occurred there:=

There was a massive eff= ort in making available information to a general Internet surfing population. Many web sites were data/information sources. These web sites had no further goal than simply presenting information via Internet. Many businesses and organisations used this to promote themselves and give information on their products and services, or to present their cause. Relatively fewer individuals, compared to the number of businesses and organisations, used web sites to put themselves or their personal caus= e on the World Wide Web (WWW). Flowing from this influx of information onto= the World Wide Web, search engines like Yahoo! and Google (plus a multitud= e of others) came about to make finding information easier. The availabilit= y of good search engines re-enforced the usefulness of placing information = on the WWW and the more information there was the more it attracted searc= hers and users, using search engines. This was the information wave of Web = 1.0, which we can call Web 1.1; this wave is really continuing with more and more types of information being made available, sometimes in near real time. In other words, Web 1.1 is very much still with us, and happening out there.
Related to the informat= ion wave of Web 1.0, companies in particular took the information availability = one step further and created businesses on line. In many instances these businesses were simply extensions (a different distribution channel) to their existing businesses. In other case whole new business models emerged, that works only because of the Internet and WWW. Examples are Dell’s selling of computers, e-Bay auctions, and Amazon. Many smaller and different business models also started to function, becaus= e of the information availability and connectivity that the Internet and WWW provided. These businesses continue to operate and grow successfully, = and one can anticipate a continued growth and increase in variety of busin= ess models build on the Internet connectivity. This is the commercialisati= on wave of Web 1; perhaps one should refer to this as Web 1.2<= /span>

<= o:p>

I= t should be noted that there is a direct linkage between the technology and software= availability, which enabled Web 1.1 and Web 1.2. This means that one can define these wav= es in terms of their underlying technology, but this does not really help us in understanding what is happening (unless you happen to know the range of technical labels). What is important to know is that like Web 1.0, Web 2.0 = (and subsequent Webs) also are enabled by specific technological developments. In this article we are focussing not on the technical dimension, but on what these waves are about.

<= o:p>

B= ut what is Web 2.0 about?

Web 2.0.

<= o:p>

W= here-as Web 1.0 was primarily dominated by institutional presence on the WWW, either organisations such as governments, social institutions and businesses, the = Web 2.0 revolution is a world wide social revolution, where individuals express themselves on the WWW, and use the connectivity to interact socially.

<= o:p>

W= hile one can argue that e-mail provided the first form of social interaction that us= ed the Internet, and that this had started in the mid 1980’s already, Web 2.0 is really a bit different in that it is centred on a continued presence= of individuals in various forums. The presence can be in different forms, like= MySpace, which is place where people can write about themselves, and receive and respond to comments about their own expression.= Flicr is a site devoted to (photo-)graphic self expression. (The existence and popularity of Flic= r illustrates the link with technology: Flicr is = as much a phenomenon of Internet as it is of the digital camera revolution. Flicr could not have been the success it is 10 years = ago.) Facebook, and more edgy sites like AdultFinder, have a different focus from self-expression: They have social interaction a= s a goal, but uses self expression as part of what they do. Most of the sites l= ike Facebook, Flicr, are comm= unity sites, that enable social interaction around a theme, = and actively cater for user created themes around which to interact. Google Groups, and Yahoo! offer social interaction in communi= ties where membership are more controlled, and represent the next generation aft= er the early

<= o:p>

T= he two features of Web 2.0 are therefore:

Web 2.1: The wave of self expression, either through writing (“= ;blogs”), or through pictures or a combination of these, of individuals building a WWW presence.

Web 2.2: The wave of social interaction enabled by social interaction sites.

<= o:p>

W= here-as one can think of Web 1.1 and Web 1.2 separately, as two waves, Web 2.1 and = Web 2.2 are so closely intertwined as make the distinction meaningless; there is only really only one Web 2.0.

<= o:p>

W= eb 2.0 allows an individual to “broadcast” (make known) him or herself= to the World population on a scale so large as to be totally incomprehensible.= The shear numbers and variety of people one can get to know and interact with, has increased the number of people the avera= ge (Internet connected) person socially relates to in her or his lifetime, to numbers that is simply mind boggling. The effect of this magnitude of global socialisation on the social fabric of the real World, has only started to emerge. The socially connected World has and is going to have effects on values and norms, the spreading of that geographically and ultimately on expectations and demands that politicians, corporations and institutions will have to take note of. The Web 2.0 revolution is in its ea= rly phases, and will accelerate as more people get connected to the Internet.

<= o:p>

W= eb 3.0

<= o:p>

W= eb 1.0 and Web 2.0 are historical: The events and patterns that make up these waves are visible and can be studied. Web 3.0 is not yet, so this section is a postul= ate of what Web 3.0 will be about.

<= o:p>

T= he postulate around the Web 3.0 wave is that Web 3.0 will be about making commercial use out of the social presence of a very large number of individ= uals in Web 2.0.

<= o:p>

T= he “use” could take numerous forms, for example very targeted advertising, or selling, where the advertising is based on an analysis of t= he social profile of the individual as he or she presents themselves, and interacts socially, on the Internet. Another form could of use could be to aggregate the information content in their Web 2.0 profiles into informatio= n of wider interest.

<= o:p>

O= ne of the problems with Web 2.0 is the “uncontrolled” nature of the information being presented by individuals. As it repre= sent their own personalities, likes and dislikes, their own thoughts in words and pictures, there really is nothing to control. However, there is no particul= ar way to ensure, for example, consistency in labelling a photograph that an individual puts on Flicr. A sunset photograph c= an carry any number of labels, and need not reflect the name of the locality. Should one be interested in retrieving information about that particular locale, such a photograph will be “lost”, in the sense that the owner saw something different in significance in the photograph and has not identified the locality. Web 3.0 will need to find ways of overcoming these individual idiosyncracies to extract comeercially usefull info= rmation.

<= o:p>

A= n example, of what I would call Web 2.5, and not fully Web 3.0, is the Tracks4Africa (= www.tracks4africa.com) business.= It started from travellers to remote areas in Africa sharing their stories and Global Positioning System (GPS) “tracksR= 21; with each other. There tracks are recordings of the positions where they ha= ve been; a track consists of a position recorded every few seconds. The tracks contain position errors due to inaccuracies in satellite navigation. When multiple track recordings of the same road are combined statistically, a ve= ry accurate plot of the road can be created. In this way Tracks4Africa created very accurate maps which surpass what any individual can create using his or her own data. These maps are augmented by position descriptions of various types, for example where fuel can be obtained. In this way information relevant to travellers is added to the map, making it a very useful planning and travel guide, which is sold in appropriate retail outlets as well as on Internet. = The business model is that of aggregating the data of a large number of individuals, and adding value (by appropriate quality control over what dat= a is used). The enforcement of standards for data used is an important component= of the success of this business model. The Tracks4Africa business model is per= haps Web2.5 and not Web 3.0, as it actively promoted the submission of specific types of data. It did not use data that individuals already published on Internet as a basis for its product. An example closer to Web 3.0, is Google Earth, which uses information overlay layers sourced from different origins, including that of Tracks4Afr= ica (although it is not yet commercialised).

<= o:p>

I= believe Web 3.0 would create a commercial layer on top of the existing social expression web sites (Flicr, MySpace, etc.) and through clever data mining build up commercial products or servic= es. LinkedIn may be moving in this direction, with its professional networking service. LinkedIn, Facebook and Flicr are al= ready in use by corporate human resource departments and appointment agencies to che= ck the background of prospective candidates and one can entertain services that does this in a more automated and structured manner.

<= o:p>

T= he successful new generation WWW businesses will be the ones finding ways commercialising the social presence of individuals and their social network= ing in Web 2.0. While this Web 3.0 wave is forming, Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 will be= by no means dying off but will co-exist with Web 3.0.

<= o:p>