Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Clarity needed around Web 3.0

25 February 2011 by Clark 6 Comments

I like ASTD; they offer a valuable service to the industry in education, including reports, webinars, very good conferences (despite occasional hiccups, *cough* learning styles *cough*) that I happily speak at and even have served on a program committee for.     They may not be progressive enough for me, but I’m not their target market.   When they come out with books like The New Social Learning, they are to be especially lauded.   And when they make a conceptual mistake, I feel it’s fair, nay a responsibility, to call them on it.   Not to bag them, but to try to achieve a shared understanding and move the industry forward.   And I think they’ve made a mistake that is problematic to ignore.

A recent report of theirs, Better, Smarter, Faster: How Web 3.0 will Transform Learning in High-Performing Organizations, makes a mistake in it’s extension of a definition of Web 3.0, and I think it’s important to be clear.   Now, I haven’t read the whole report, but they make a point of including their definition in the free Executive Summary (which I *think* you can get too, even if you’re not a member, but I can’t be sure).   Their definition:

Web 3.0 represents a range of Internet-based services and technologies that include components such as natural language search, forms of artificial intelligence and machine learning, software agents that make recommendations to users, and the application of context to content.

This I almost completely agree with.   The easy examples are Netflix and Amazon recommendations: they don’t know you personally, but they have your purchases or rentals, and they can compare that to a whole bunch of other anonymous folks and create recommendations that can get spookily good.   It’s done by massive analytics, there’s no homunculus hiding behind the screen cobbling these recommendations together, it’s all done by rules and statistics.

I’ve presented before my interpretation of Web 3.0, and it is very much about using smart internet services to do, essentially system-generated content (as opposed to 1.0 producer-generated content and 2.0 user-generated content).   The application of context to content could be a bit ambiguous, however, and I’d mean that to be dynamic application of context to content, rather than pre-designed solutions (which get back to web 1.0).

As such, their first component of their three parts includes the semantic web.   Which, if they’d stopped at, would be fine. However, they bring in two other components. The second:

  • the Mobile Web, which will allow users to experience the web seamlessly as they move from one device to another, and most interaction will take place on mobile devices.

I don’t see how this follows from the definition. The mobile web is really not fundamentally a shift.   Mobile may be a fundamental societal shift, but just being able to access the internet from anywhere isn’t really a paradigmatic shift from webs 1.0 and 2.0. Yes, you can acccess produced content, and user-generated content from wherever/whenever, but it’s not going to change the content you see in any meaningful way.

They go on to the third component:

  • The third element is the idea of an immersive Internet, in which virtual worlds, augmented reality, and 3-D environments are the norm.

Again, I don’t see how this follows from their definition.   Virtual worlds start out as producer-generated content, web 1.0. Sims and games are designed and built a priori.   Yes, it’s way cool, technically sophisticated, etc, but it’s not a meaningful change. And, yes, worlds like Second Life let you extend it, turning it into web 2.0, but it’s still not fundamentally new.   We took simulations and games out of advanced technology for the conferences several years ago when I served.   This isn’t fundamentally new.

Yes, you can do new stuff on top of mobile web and immersive environments that would qualify, like taking your location and, say, goals and programmatically generating specific content for you, or creating a custom world and outcomes based upon your actions in the world from a model not just of the world, but of you, and others, and… whatever.   But without that, it’s just web 1.0 or 2.0.

And it’d be easy to slough this off and say it doesn’t matter, but ASTD is a voice with a long reach, and we really do need to hold them to a high standard because of their influence.   And we need people to be clear about what’s clever and what’s transformative.   This is not to say my definition is the only one, others have   interpretations that differ, but I think the convergent view is while it may be more than semantic web, it’s not evolutionary steps.   I’m willing to be wrong, so if you disagree, let me know.   But I think we have to get this right.

Comments

  1. Doug woods says

    25 February 2011 at 7:35 AM

    I think in terms of the mobile web, we should remember that mobile devices are not merely passive but can detect their location. This can be used to generate location specific content, which, and I’m guessing here, may be what is meant by web 3.0 in a mobile context.

  2. Clark says

    25 February 2011 at 7:59 AM

    Doug, thanks for the clarification. Yes, if they’re doing on-the-fly generation of context-sensitive responses, that would likely qualify. It’s true I haven’t been able to read the full report, but the executive summary didn’t seem to make any such sort of distinction.

  3. Judy Unrein says

    25 February 2011 at 2:46 PM

    Clark, I really appreciate your post. I went to a session at ICE 2009 in which the presenter used Web 3.0 to mean almost exclusively virtual worlds. (Not ASTD’s fault directly, but I do think the organization would do well to lead the way in getting it right.) Web 3.0 doesn’t just mean “the next big fad” any more than Web 2.0 means “pop-ups with roundy corners”, and the people who know the difference really shouldn’t let this slide. And. Big organizations that purport to inform should first know better.

  4. Mark Vickers says

    26 February 2011 at 8:47 PM

    Hi Clark,

    As one of the authors of the report, I wanted to chime on this. Please get the full report if you can so you can see how the analysis was conducted. The executive summary just couldn’t do justice to the in-depth findings. One of the first things we did in this research was ask learning professionals and other experts how THEY defined Web 3.0. We started with a focus group and then, based input from that group, surveyed a large number of learning and HR professionals about the extent to which they consider various items as belonging to the Web 3.0 paradigm.

    I don’t want to make this response too long so I’ll ignore 3-D aspects of Web 3.0, only citing experts such as Dr. Tony O’Driscoll and his idea of the “immernet” as one of the reasons we polled learning professionals about whether this fits into the Web 3.0 paradigm. Instead, let’s focus on the mobile Web, which I think was one of the most interesting and, as you suggest, controversial findings of the report.

    It turned out that the mobile Web was the area which the largest percentage of respondents identified as part of Web 3.0. This surprised some of the people on research team, including myself, but the data are clear on this point. I’m accustomed to thinking about Web 3.0 in terms of semantic Web, etc., but this isn’t about what you or I think. It’s about what the practitioners believe. Can we really call them “right” or “wrong” in regard to a term such as Web 3.0, which is fast evolving and about which even the experts disagree?

    As we explored these findings, we discovered that the participants probably have made a good “collective-wisdom” point in regard to mobile tech. Mobile technologies are, in fact, quickly changing the way people approach the Web. You write, “Yes, you can access produced content, and user-generated content from wherever/whenever, but it’s not going to change the content you see in any meaningful way.”

    There are three responses to this. First, augmented reality apps, for example, are mainly restricted to mobile devices and help people learn information on the fly. These will grow increasingly powerful and useful over the next year or two. Another aspect of the mobile Web is the use of services such as Foursquare, which also helps people socialize and learn about one another in ways that conventional PC or laptop apps were never able to do.

    The second (and probably more arguable) part of my response is that the “wherever/whenever” aspect of the mobile is, in fact, a paradigm change all on its own. Web content is just starting to change as a result. We’re seeing the creation of new kinds of books and magazines online that are not, in the conventional sense, books or magazines at all. They’re something quite different, something for which we don’t even have a good name yet, something that is rapidly evolving in a new Cambrian explosion on the mobile Web. Can you see these new apps on your laptop? Maybe. But we wouldn’t have created them at all in a PC world.

    Finally, as we note in the report, mobile technologies are already expanding beyond smart phones and tablets, with companies such as BMW presenting ideas such as augmented reality goggles as the next way they’ll be extending the productivity of their mechanics and engineers.

    So, although I myself wouldn’t have viewed mobile technologies as a key part of Web 3.0 before we conducted the research, I now believe there’s a strong argument to be made that it is. Viva la revolucion.

    If you’d like to read more about my take on mobile tech, please go to http://markrvickers.com/2011/02/15/is-mobile-tech-going-to-transform-learning/

  5. Clark says

    28 February 2011 at 9:40 AM

    Mark, thanks *very* much for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully. You raise interesting points. I’m not sure I agree with allowing folks to define web 3.0, instead of looking for the right conceptual basis, but you certainly cite emerging patterns in a convincing way.

    I agree that if systems are generating smart content for the context in your augmented reality examples, that *is* semantic web. I’m not sure I think the tablet version of content really is web 3.0, since it’s still designed by the publisher and isn’t really (at least to me) new. And I think augmented reality goggles for mechanics is really cool, but still not web 3.0.

    Still, I see where you’re coming from and I can see why you might want to consider some of this as web 3.0. I’ll have to ponder further. I do think mobile is a more fundamental change than I did a few years ago, and I look forward to reading your take. Thanks again for taking the time to respond and help me and readers understand how you made the distinctions that emerged in the report.

Trackbacks

  1. So, What Is Web 3.0, Anyway? | The Reticulum says:
    2 March 2011 at 11:18 AM

    […] Web 3.0 Will Transform Learning In High-Performance Organizations – has started to widen the debate on just what Web 3.0 […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Clark Quinn

The Company

Search

Feedblitz (email) signup

Never miss a post
Your email address:*
Please wait...
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

Pages

  • About Learnlets and Quinnovation

The Serious eLearning Manifesto

Manifesto badge

Categories

  • design
  • games
  • meta-learning
  • mindmap
  • mobile
  • social
  • strategy
  • technology
  • Uncategorized
  • virtual worlds

Blogroll

  • Charles Jennings
  • Christy Tucker
  • Connie Malamed
  • Dave's Whiteboard
  • Donald Clark's Plan B
  • Donald Taylor
  • Harold Jarche
  • Julie Dirksen
  • Kevin Thorn
  • Mark Britz
  • Mirjam Neelen & Paul Kirschner
  • Stephen Downes' Half an Hour

License

Previous Posts

  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006

Amazon Affiliate

Required to announce that, as an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Mostly book links. Full disclosure.