13 comments

• 

  Jason

  1 year ago

  Note: The semantic web definition was unauthorized and as such invalid. Additionally, your blog post was not pre-approved for double-opt in rebuttal, and as such will be downgraded in the index.
  
  For more information please check the official, pre-approved response to your unauthorized comments.
  
  
  best,
  
  J
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  1 year ago

  Jason, if there's a top 100 list of linkbait artists out there, you would definitely be in the top 5 :-)
  reply
• 

  eric norlin

  1 year ago

  some comments on the whole "web 3.blecch" mess:
  
  http://defragcon.com/Blog/?p=138
  
  ;-)
  ejn
  reply
• 

  Leigh

  1 year ago

  Yeah but I bet Mathew ends up on Techmeme....
  reply
• 

  Andrew Goodman

  1 year ago

  I haven't heard "diminutive" used in such a cutting way since the days of Toronto sports reporters writing about "diminutive puckstopper Allan Bester."
  reply
• 

  Eric Berlin

  1 year ago

  Are people becoming too concerned with the *semantics* web?
  
  I understand that Mr. Calacanis excels at drumming up controversy and blogospheric conversations, but I'm surprised at the reactions to this.
  
  Maybe I'm just more comfortable with throwing loose labels around than others, but I see zero that's controversial in Jason's definition, and in fact think it's right on. Web technology is more or less commoditized today, therefore the best ideas and execution of those ideas will tend to win out over the next few years. That's my take as well.
  
  Now, maybe the semantic web (or the "whatever web") will be Web 3.0 *or* Web 4.0 or whatever, but does that really matter?
  reply
• 

  Craig

  1 year ago

  semantic web is a useless buzz word that will never make it out of geek speak and academia.
  reply
• 

  Mathew

  1 year ago

  Eric, I don't think there's anything wrong with Jason's description -- it sounds like something worthwhile. And maybe it's silly to get all caught up in what's the "official" definition of Web 3.0.
  
  But at the same time, I think if we're going to talk about something, we should be clear about what it is we're trying to talk about.
  
  As for the term "semantic web," Craig, you are right that it is a buzz word, and may only be used by geeks and academics. I certainly don't expect my mother to use it, or even understand it -- the same way I don't expect her to know what HTML is. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't use those terms at all.
  reply
• 

  Tom

  1 year ago

  I actually agree completely with your post but couldn't help myself from pointing out one irony. That irony is that you're essentially endorsing the idea of a semantic web on a blog with a RSS 2.0 feed.
  
  If people really believe the Semantic Web to be the future than shouldn't they make a move to support it with their own blogs? And isn’t the first step to doing that having your feed in a format that is strict enough to be used in a semantic scenario (Atom would probably be the best choice but RDF based RSS 1.0 would also work)?
  
  Anyway, sorry for the off topic mini-rant but I just had to point that out
  reply
• 

  Fraser

  1 year ago

  "I think if we’re going to talk about something, we should be clear about what it is we’re trying to talk about." - Couldn't agree more. If everyone in the discussion is using the same buzz word to convey the same message, often times it makes sense to use buzz words because they can communicate abstract ideas efficiently. Trouble arises when buzz words are solely used free from content or in the presence of those who don't grasp all that the word defines.
  
  On that note, it's probably worth noting that Semantic Web and Implicit Web are two very different things.
  
  @ Andrew: Bester's legacy lives on among hardcore leaf fans. He has not one, but two (!) Facebook fan groups.
  reply
• 

  Dave Zatz

  1 year ago

  Diminutive?
  reply
• 

  Jeffrey

  1 year ago

  I was already surprised by Jason's use of the words "gifted" and "high quality" as being, at worst, naive. Now, thanks to your post, Matthew, I see that thinking it was naive was hardly the correct "at worst" scenario.
  reply
• 

  TDavid

  1 year ago

  When web versioning iterates to web113 I have the dot com already sewn up. It's had 224 visitors since November 16, 2006, too hehe ;)
  reply