It’s become one of those terms that is so overhyped its cringe worthy any time you hear but it’s interesting to try and examine what exactly Web to means. Originally I think it was a term that was coined to describe web sites that have some sort of social interactivity. The basic concept being that 1.0 sites were about large organizations providing the concept and the content and other Web surfers would be simply spectators are consumers whereas the 2.0 seems to be based more around the idea of user interactivity where the web servers actually get involved and create the content for the web site. The obvious examples being things like my space and youtube.
the difficulty I see is that things are moving at such a pace that it incredibly difficult for any one particular term to encompass what is actually happening at a particular time. Usually by the time a term comes into common use the thing it originally encompassed nicely in a nutshell has moved on to such a degree as to become unrecognizable from the original concept.
This is unfortunately this simple nature of the Web and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future ultimately, my suggestion is to try and understand the actual concepts without necessarily feeling the need to brand him specifically because while the brands and the concepts are going to change on such a quick moving basis the underlying idea of both the content and the nature of user interactivity will ultimately rely on what Web surfers want.
One of the great things about a market economy is the innate ability of the marketplace to adapt to what consumers actually want so I look forward to great content whether be web 234 or however many generations are to come