Re: Naming Clash: The W3C Web 3.0 Stack and "Web3"

pá 21. 7. 2023 v 22:48 odesílatel Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> napsal:

> 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.
>

"Web 3.0" appears on the W3C website on multiple occasions, dating back to
at least 2007, in conjunction with Linked Data

Linked Data continues to be used on the web, on millions of websites, and
billions of pages


> 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
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 at 21:31, Nathan Rixham <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023, 20:59 Travis Vachon, <travis.vachon@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> it would be extremely disappointing to see the TAG lump the myriad
>>> innovative and useful innovations that Robin lays out in with the various
>>> marketing scams that have taken advantage of the success of these tools by
>>> calling themselves "web3" projects.
>>>
>>
>> +1, my sentiments exactly
>>
>>>