It is what it is
I was pondering the definition of Web 2.0 again this morning when I suddenly realized just how futile the attempt really is. Like SOA, we can certainly provide a list of characteristics that together prove any given application is (and conversely is not) Web 2.0, but that's a description of a set of behaviors, not really a good description of a technology.
Web 2.0 is not a toolkit, it's not a product. It is existential by its very nature, the application of a programmatic concept that declares itself a Web 2.0 application through its own behavior, and which changes over time based on the dynamic nature of emerging technology. Sartre would love this technology, as surely as Thomists would likely decry it. After all, there's no "Web 2.0 form" by which all Web 2.0 applications can be judged. No RFC means no form, right? >
More to read:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment