+1 Dan ------- Original Message ------- On Friday, July 21st, 2023 at 21:47, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > Fwiw the TAG don’t systematically monitor this email list and haven’t for years (unless that changed recently). Github is the way to their attention. > > In passing… > > W3C has never really used “Web 3.0” (or 2.0) for its work. The whole reason “2.0” resonated rhetorically 20 years ago was because we all know you couldn’t really version the web like that. And the only reason people tried to claim “web 3.0” was the success of Tim O’Reilly’s original account of a cluster of trends he labelled “2.0”. It was more like an era - the era of “the dot com crash hasn’t killed this idea”. Given the attention it got, of course there was going to be an unseemly scramble to number, name and describe what came next. But it was never particularly serious. We should just stop acting like “web 3.0” means anything very specific or technical. The O’Reilly “web 2.0” was a good (because parodoxical) name for the “recovery from the dotcom crash” moment, not a spec. And “RDF as the third version of the web” was always laughable; it is one tool amongst many, and we all knew it. > > Dan
Received on Friday, 21 July 2023 21:27:21 UTC