...and he's making otherwise intelligent people swoon rather embarrasingly.
I'm calling you guys out - yes, you Ian Davis and you Paul Miller. I get it. You meet Nova, have a few drinks and then your readers are subjected to late night 'Web 3.0' blog posts.
If we want a phrase that's better than 'Semantic Web' then 'Web of Data' is far more self-explanatory than the cryptic 'Web 3.0'. Buzzword hotel sure is full - what with Graphing Social Patterns in mid-flow over in San Diego. All the Valley geeks have got their knickers in a twist about Facebook and OpenSocial/MySpace. They are banging on about how important platforms are. Last 'platform' that I used was AOL. I prefer the Web though. Lots more social graph nonsense (repeat after me: 'social network data' has no information loss, is understood by normal people and doesn't make you sound like a preening Valley type - sure use 'social graph' when you are talking to your VCs, but, please cut it out when you take the shirt-and-tie off).
If we are going to build a Semantic Web and still be sane and have a head full of hair at the end of it, we need to stop coming up with jargon. Jargon is fine if it describes a well-defined technical thing. An example might be 'reification'. It has a clear technical definition. I can go and read something like the RDF Semantics or Concepts and Abstract Syntax document and figure out what the person is talking about. But 'Web 3G' or 'semantic graph' or - shudder - 'social graph'. What on earth is everyone talking about?
