The article, and comments, capture the confusion around how to define a term Web 3.0. The fact is that it is being used now, effectively, and with no confusion about definition. Some folks make a good point about the dangers of marketing co-opting a term. Although, "A rose is still a rose".

I spoke at DERI in Ireland a week before Nova Spivak (twine.com). Read what Nova has to say about DERI to find out all the "real-world" projects: http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2008/03/...

When I started getting excited about the semantic web, I thought was a late bloomer. I started getting interested in distributed "knowledge bases" - or expert systems - six years ago. The computer science was finished a long time ago for DAML, description logic, DHTs, and multi-agent systems. The last several years have been engineering - you know, like when the Eiffel tower was being built and there were lots of naysayers. Well, it's almost done, and the conversation should shift from confusion to how you are going to use it - because probably you already are.

The highest-quality information is embedded in prices that are generated in deeply-liquid cash markets.

The next-best info is embedded in prices that are generated in deeply liquid markets wherein people transact with barter currency (e.g., Second Life).

Of course, a chief virtue of the Web is its openness and adaptability (i.e., its capacity to migrate intelligence "to the edge").

A key to fulfilling the promise of Web 3.0, then, is proliferating online markets that:

1) separately or in combination, provide people with new and improved ways to develop, showcase and earn money from expertise

2) supply barter currencies for use by market participants (who can also use cash, of course)

Details are online at http://www.loveatmadisonandwall.com.

Best,

I don't think we can have Web 3.0 before Web 2.0 goes bust like Web 1.0 did. We need a valley before the next peak.