ing promises to take on new forms through Web 2.0 channels.

As more Web 2.0 technologies are deployed, and as early impact is positively assessed, additional deployment and additional productivity can be expected. Momentum breeds momentum, and the second-order impact of the technologies will be felt as momentum grows. While “simple is good” today, “complex and powerful” will define tomorrow’s deployment of Web 2.0 and 3.0 technologies.

Web 3.0 technologies should be
anticipated. According to Wikipedia.
org, Web 3.0 technologies include:
“The emergence of ‘The Data Web’ as
structured data records are published
to the Web in reusable and remotely
queryable formats. The Data Web
enables a new level of data integra-
tion and application interoperabil-
ity, making data as openly accessible
and linkable as Web pages. The Data
Web is the first step on the path to-
ward the full Semantic Web. The full
Semantic Web will widen the scope
such that both structured data and
even what is traditionally thought of
as unstructured or semi-structured
content (such as Web pages and docu-
ments) will be widely available in RDF
and OWL semantic formats. Web site
parse templates will be used by Web
3.0 crawlers to get more precise infor-
mation about Web sites’ structured
content. Web 3.0 has also been used
to describe an evolutionary path for
the Web that leads to artificial intelli-
gence that can reason about the Web
in a quasi-human fashion.”
Next-generation Web technology
will be proactive, intelligent, contex-
tual, automated, and adaptive. While
we examined adoption of Web 2.0
technologies, imagine the analyses
of Web 3.0 technology adoption we’ll
eventually conduct. When technology
integrates seamlessly into business
processes at all levels we can expect
impact to be immediate and dra-
matic. The full potential of Web 3.0 is
years away, but the drivers of Web 2.0
technology adoption already provide
clues to how ubiquitous Web 3.0 is
likely to be.

 

acknowledgments

I would like to thank the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for supporting

Regardless of the
reason, we found
a gap between
what was expected
and what actually
occurred.

the interview and direct observation processes; Villanova University and the Cutter Consortium for supporting the collection of the survey data; and A. Frank Mayadas of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for his always excellent comments and insights along the way.

 

References

1. ahn, y.-y., han, S., Kwak, h., moon, S., and jeong, h.

Semantic Web and Web 2.0: analysis of topological characteristics of huge online social networking services. in Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web (Calgary, 2007).

2. boll, S. multitube: Where Web 2.0 and multimedia could meet. IEEE MultiMedia 14, 1 (jan. 2007).

3. brier, j. guidelines: Web accessibility highlights and trends. in Proceedings of the 2004 International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (manchester, england, 2004).

4. Fox, g. implications of Web 2.0 for the semantic grid. in Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Semantics, Knowledge, and Grid (guilin, guangxi, China 2006).

5. jaokar, a. and Fish, t. Mobile Web 2.0: The Innovator’s Guide to Developing and Marketing Next-Generation Wireless/Mobile Applications. Futuretext, london, aug. 2006.

6. lin, K.-j. building Web 2.0. IEEE Computer 40, 5 (may 2007).

7. lin, K.-j. Serving Web 2.0 with Soa: providing the technology for innovation and specialization. in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on e-Business Engineering (los angeles, 2006).

8. losinski, r. patrolling Web 2.0. THE (Technological Horizons in Education) Journal 34.

9. mahmood, o. developing Web 2.0 applications for semantic Web of trust. in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology, 2007.

10. majchrzak, a., Wagner, C., and yeates, d. Corporate wiki users: results of a survey. in Proceedings of WikiSym, 2006.

11. mcKinsey & Co. How Businesses Are Using Web 2.0: A McKinsey Global Survey, 2007.

12. minol, K., Spelsberg, g., Schulte, e., and morris, n. portals, blogs and co.: the role of the internet as a medium of science communication. Biotechnology Journal 2, 8 (aug. 2007).

13. mori, m., miura, t., and Shioya, i. topic detection and tracking for news Web pages. in Proceedings of the IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence, 2006.

14. orr, b. parsing the meaning of Web 2.0. ABA Banking Journal 9.

15. poer, C. and petrie, h. accessibility and guidelines: accessibility in non-professional Web authoring tools: a missed Web 2.0 opportunity? in Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, 2007.

16. tredinnick, l. Web 2.0 and business. Business Information Review 23, 4 (2006), 228–234.

17. van der Vlist, e., ayers, d., bruchez, e., Fawcett, j., and Vernet, a. Professional Web 2.0 Programming. Wrox professional guides, Wrox press ltd., nov. 2006.

18. Wagner, C. and majchrzak, a. enabling customer centricity using wikis and the wiki way. Journal of Management Information Systems 23, 3 (2007).

19. yanbe, y., jatowt, a., nakamura, S., and tanaka, K. Social networks: Can social bookmarking enhance search on the Web? in Proceedings of the Conference on Digital Libraries, 2007.

20. Zajicek, m. Web 2.0: hype or happiness? in Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility, 2007.

 

Stephen J. Andriole ( [e-mail]) is the thomas g. labrecque professor of business in the department of management & operations in the Villanova School of business at Villanova University, Villanova, pa.