<![CDATA[Why the New York Times is announcing Web 3.0 - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Why the New York Times is announcing Web 3.0 - Valleywag Comments]]> <![CDATA[Why the New York Times is announcing Web 3.0]]> So glad I had these shirts made! http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianoberkirch/163490324/

Sean Ness

]]> <![CDATA[Why the New York Times is announcing Web 3.0]]> PS I love how Denton has you on Eastern time. Yeah, you totally rule the Valley scene. And your inability to configure WordPress (or is it still MT?) lends you even more credibility.

sidhudgens

]]> <![CDATA[Why the New York Times is announcing Web 3.0]]> The only tech stories that matter are the ones where a Google spokesbot comments. Otherwise, it's bullsh*t. Duly noted!

I also like the part where you say Google passed on the story, even though you have zero clue whether they were called or not, or even any argument as to why they should be called.

This is actually more pathetic than the original story.

sidhudgens

]]> <![CDATA[Why the New York Times is announcing Web 3.0]]> Wikipedia has easier ways to deal with such nonsense... delete any attempts at starting an article claiming "web 3.0" is the Semantic Web, and add a redirect for those who may still confuse the two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_3

In the meantime, Google already implemented first steps of the lower-case semantic web -- search for [population of berlin] to see it in action, no meta-tagging by web authors needed. http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm

Philipp Lenssen

]]> <![CDATA[Why the New York Times is announcing Web 3.0]]> what are you talking about? elgoog didn't smell a dud, they just aren't doing any real work in this area for implementation, though quite practically doing some of this within labs...ibm, however, is doing some solid work in this area, as are many involved with the w3c, others working on automation of web mining tools and so on...clearly you haven't done any research in this area, sorry. i do see yahoo dipping their toes a bit more, but it looks like the article was not really interested in the major portals and search engines, as their current offerings don't wrestle with this...BUT i do agree that 'web 3.0' is a gross term for this...haven't you been following rdf and other standards for the past few years?

ResearchZilla

]]> <![CDATA[Why the New York Times is announcing Web 3.0]]> on target.

DaveMcClure500Hats

]]>