Posted to wrong list? James Margaris
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Cooper Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Web 1.0 v. 2.0 On 9/14/06, Michael Turyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.... > >
