Web 1.0 v. 2.0

[Michael Turyn <MT...@nexaweb.com>]

Thanks for including us in your brain-storming session.

I can't shake the feeling that you'd be best-off admitting the hype first-off (which perhaps you do), finding the common elements to the consumer-oriented changes and asking what those same transofrmations would do to a few business processes.

An example:  Web 1.0 was about static content broadcasted, what I'll call "Web 1.5" is dynamic and targetted content broadcast, and Web 2.0 is static content at least partially generated by the audience or aggregated using analyses of what they want (or are willing to pay for).  (Web 2.5 will presumably allow the audience to easily create dynamic content---a real opening for XAL as the means for users to assemble 1-off apps---, and you can already somewhat narrowcast using keywording to try to attract others.)

What happens to spreadsheets under the same transform?  To supply-chain?  Training/{knowledge retention}? H.R.?

I'm afraid I have the easisest time seeing it applied to training, both because it's most like a consumer application, because it _has_ to get audience buy-in to work (ever taught people who don't want to learn?), and because I've a couple of experiences there
1.) A prospective training programme at Boeing in 1992 using multimedia and experts' commentary
2.) A knowlege base system at ATG built entirely from worker content---I guess the 2.0/2.5 version of it would be the employees' actually adding to the application system itself, rather than just add content to it.

The problem with the other business processes is that they have predetermined goals (e.g., maximise supply availability whilst minimising cost and latency) that can't be trusted to be the users' collective will, so democracy will implicitly be distrusted.

It might seem to hype-y, but perhaps we can use a "Web 2.5" line of marketing....

RE: Web 1.0 v. 2.0

[James Margaris <jm...@nexaweb.com>]

 Posted to wrong list?

James Margaris

-----Original Message-----
From: mfncooper@gmail.com [mailto:mfncooper@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Martin Cooper
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:19 PM
To: xap-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Web 1.0 v. 2.0

On 9/14/06, Michael Turyn <MT...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for including us in your brain-storming session.


Did I miss something? What brainstorming session? Some context for the
rest of your message, below, would be most helpful.

--
Martin Cooper


I can't shake the feeling that you'd be best-off admitting the hype
> first-off (which perhaps you do), finding the common elements to the 
> consumer-oriented changes and asking what those same transofrmations 
> would do to a few business processes.
>
> An example:  Web 1.0 was about static content broadcasted, what I'll 
> call "Web 1.5" is dynamic and targetted content broadcast, and Web 2.0

> is static content at least partially generated by the audience or 
> aggregated using analyses of what they want (or are willing to pay 
> for).  (Web 2.5will presumably allow the audience to easily create 
> dynamic content---a real opening for XAL as the means for users to 
> assemble 1-off apps---, and you can already somewhat narrowcast using 
> keywording to try to attract others.)
>
> What happens to spreadsheets under the same transform?  To 
> supply-chain?  Training/{knowledge retention}? H.R.?
>
> I'm afraid I have the easisest time seeing it applied to training, 
> both because it's most like a consumer application, because it _has_ 
> to get audience buy-in to work (ever taught people who don't want to 
> learn?), and because I've a couple of experiences there
> 1.) A prospective training programme at Boeing in 1992 using 
> multimedia and experts' commentary
> 2.) A knowlege base system at ATG built entirely from worker 
> content---I guess the 2.0/2.5 version of it would be the employees' 
> actually adding to the application system itself, rather than just add
content to it.
>
> The problem with the other business processes is that they have 
> predetermined goals (e.g., maximise supply availability whilst 
> minimising cost and latency) that can't be trusted to be the users' 
> collective will, so democracy will implicitly be distrusted.
>
> It might seem to hype-y, but perhaps we can use a "Web 2.5" line of 
> marketing....
>
>

Re: Web 1.0 v. 2.0

[Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>]

On 9/14/06, Michael Turyn <MT...@nexaweb.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for including us in your brain-storming session.


Did I miss something? What brainstorming session? Some context for the rest
of your message, below, would be most helpful.

--
Martin Cooper


I can't shake the feeling that you'd be best-off admitting the hype
> first-off (which perhaps you do), finding the common elements to the
> consumer-oriented changes and asking what those same transofrmations would
> do to a few business processes.
>
> An example:  Web 1.0 was about static content broadcasted, what I'll call
> "Web 1.5" is dynamic and targetted content broadcast, and Web 2.0 is
> static content at least partially generated by the audience or aggregated
> using analyses of what they want (or are willing to pay for).  (Web 2.5will presumably allow the audience to easily create dynamic content---a real
> opening for XAL as the means for users to assemble 1-off apps---, and you
> can already somewhat narrowcast using keywording to try to attract others.)
>
> What happens to spreadsheets under the same transform?  To
> supply-chain?  Training/{knowledge retention}? H.R.?
>
> I'm afraid I have the easisest time seeing it applied to training, both
> because it's most like a consumer application, because it _has_ to get
> audience buy-in to work (ever taught people who don't want to learn?), and
> because I've a couple of experiences there
> 1.) A prospective training programme at Boeing in 1992 using multimedia
> and experts' commentary
> 2.) A knowlege base system at ATG built entirely from worker content---I
> guess the 2.0/2.5 version of it would be the employees' actually adding to
> the application system itself, rather than just add content to it.
>
> The problem with the other business processes is that they have
> predetermined goals (e.g., maximise supply availability whilst minimising
> cost and latency) that can't be trusted to be the users' collective will, so
> democracy will implicitly be distrusted.
>
> It might seem to hype-y, but perhaps we can use a "Web 2.5" line of
> marketing....
>
>