For that reason, I started searching for a web development tool. Yeh, the tool is everything. Otherwise, you will need to reinvent the wheel as you go, that I loathe most!

• Groovy and Grails - Even though I’m a hard core Java (network programming) geek, I don’t see Java as an agile web dev language. J2EE containers are just too costly or heavy to develop a tiny app. Even though there are many good frameworks, they run on J2EE containers. :o(
• Ruby on Rails - Agile enough yet lacks performance!!! (It’s a mere perception, tho. v.1.9 is super fast! even faster than Python?!)
• Python and Django - Super fast and ultra agile!!!
• PHP - PHP language is very suitable for agile web dev yet it lacks Rails like MVC framework. (That’s what I thought until I found zillions of existing MVC frameworks. The problem is that there are just too many.)

I seriously thought of learning Python and Django or Ruby on Rails. Yet, I found this miraculous MVC framework based on PHP, DooPHP (http://www.doophp.com). This is a freakish awesome MVC framework. I gave it a try and it was darn easy and fast. Even tho I love learning new things, I decided to go with Doo!

Yup, it’s time to focus on what ought to be done, not how.

P.S. DooPHP comparison with other PHP frameworks. http://www.doophp.com/benchmark
Popular web frameworks comparison. http://www.alrond.com/en/2007/jan/25/performance-test-of-6-leading-frameworks/

At Google HQ, I was really touched by the company’s dedication to the employees. I know there are many posts regarding what Google is doing for their employees, such as, awesome free foods, Wonka style mini kitchens, endless swimming pools, foosball tables, gyms with trainers, juice bars, etc. Yet, there is huge difference between reading about it and experiencing it. Even though two engineers I had lunch with complained about the lunch since they were used to it already, yet, oh my, it was awesome!!! It was exactly like Charlie Wonka’s Chocolate Factory where you can eat everything. (Well, you cannot really eat their cubicles, though.;-P)

Other than their awesome foods and play things, I liked the founders motto; let the machines do the work. I think that is their key recipe of expanding their franchise into overseas easily since their core algorithms can be reused without much customizations. Their strategy worked just fine for the most of the countries except in Korea where Naver (by NHN) dominates the market with 65% query count market share as compared to Google 2%. For us, NHN, our extremely satisfactory search result is a double edged sword since it is based on the heavy customization for the Korean people. IMHO, it is somewhat hard to transfer our strengths to the overseas directly. Yet, we will get better fast, so, watch out, Google!

At Facebook HQ, I saw Mark Zuckerber, the founder of Facebook, in his tiny office with a big window to the inside of building, not outside. It means that his office had no view but all the employees could see what he was up to. Well, I was lucky enough to see the 25 years old young blonde CEO contemplating with his chin propped on his hands. Wow! He is actually 5 years younger than me but his company is considered to be one of the strongest competitors of the Google. That really shocked me since he looked very fragile and weak.

After the short tour, I had a dinner with a service operator. Facebook, too, provided employees buffet meals and mini kitchens. Yet, I think they had to that because there were not many places to dine. Their food was great, too, but unlike Google, they only had a cafeteria which provided a different menu per meal. (BTW, when I visited there, they were having Thai foods.) Providing free foods is a very little thing yet, IMHO, it contributes big time for the employees’ morale and loyalty to the company.

One of the unique insights from the conversation with a Facebook service operator was that she envied the Korean model of identification which forces to put social security number because it helps to identify the actual user easily. She said that it is hard to ban an abuser since he/she can rejoin the service with a different email address. I felt it was somewhat too much to get the social security number, yet, after the conversation, I had to think again.

First, the data needs to have a machine readable structure.

Second, the computing resource needs to be unlimitedly expandable to process huge set of data.

Third, the algorithm needs to be more like human intelligence.

Yes, some may be able to recognize the fact that I just explained the popular Internet trends in plain words, i.e. semantic web, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence such as collaborative filtering. This Web 3.0 stack will make the machine a crucial player in creating (or assembling) new data which expands the current knowledge base.

Thus, the HEART(Highly Extensible & Accumulative RDF Table) project will be the foundation technology of the Web 3.0 since it tackles all the key aspects of Web 3.0.

“There is only One machine.
The web is its OS.
All screens look into the One.
No bits will live outside the web.
To share is to gain.
Let the One read it.”

“단 하나의 기계만 존재한다.
웹은 그것의 운영체제다.
모든 컴퓨터 화면은 그 기계로 본다.
웹 밖에 존재하는 데이터는 없다.
얻기 위해서는 공유해야 한다.
그 기계가 읽을 수 있도록 하라.”

Even before I saw Kevin Kelly’s lecture on Ted, I blogged about the future of the web. Surprisingly, it turned out to be very similar, yet mine predicted a little farther. Before I mislead you with my strongly biased prediction, I have to tell you the motive behind this prediction; the money. I am trying to coin the term Web 3.0 and the sequels by defining a clear and concrete standard to distinguish each version and a set of aspects to realize the ultimate value for the each. Well, it will be all rubbish if no one buys this thought, yet I have to make it tangible by writing it out, so people can judge the quality of the product.

나는 테드에서 진행한 켈리 선생의 강연을 보기도 전에 웹의 미래에 대해서 블로깅을 한 적이 있다. 놀랍게도, 그의 예측과 내 것은 꽤 비슷했으나 나의 예측은 조금 더 먼 미래의 내용도 포함하고 있었다. 내 마음대로의 예측을 설명하기 전에 이 예측의 목적은 돈이라는 것을 말해두어야겠다. Web 3.0과 이 그 이후 버전에 대한 명확하고 견고한 구분 기준과 각 버전을 이루는 여러 관점의 도출을 통해 돈을 벌어보겠다는 것이다. 물론, 만약 아무도 이러한 생각에 동의하지 않는다면 별 소용이 없겠으나, 우선 사람들이 이 제품의 품질을 확인 할 수 있도록 생각을 글로써 써보겠다.

I have to start off by describing the holy war over the concept of Web 2.0. So many techies are against the term because it does not make any sense for them to put a version number for the web because it is a complex ecosystem which does not allow any specific entity to have the control over its release, versioning and characteristic. Also, they could not find any distinctive features to draw the boundary between Web 1.0 and 2.0. Yet, the general public felt something different about the Web 1.0 and 2.0 and they bought the concept brought up by Tim O’Reilly. Thus, for the techies, the Web 2.0 is merely a marketing term, yet for the general public the new web needed a new name.

우선 Web 2.0 개념 정의에 대한 성전부터 설명하면서 시작해야겠다. 많은 기술자들은 웹이 어떤 조직에 의해 그것의 배포나 버전, 그리고 속성에 대해 제어를 할 수 없는 복잡한 생태계이기 때문에 Web 2.0이라는 용어의 사용에 대해 부정적이었다. 또한, Web 1.0과 2.0을 구분 짓는 명확한 기능 또한 찾을 수 없었다. 하지만, 일반 대중은 Web 1.0과 2.0이 무엇인가 다르게 느껴졌기 때문에 팀 오라일리의 Web 2.0 개념에 동의했다. 그러므로, 기술자들에게는 Web 2.0은 단순한 마케팅 용어이나 일반 대중들에게는 새로운 이름을 필요로 하는 새로운 웹이었다.

Naming convention itself is not a crucial issue here because it is just a name to distinguish the new web from the previous one, yet all the confusions and controversies begin to rise due to lack of the clear and concrete standard to distinguish each version. Some came up with many standards in various aspects to derive the concept of Web 2.0, yet it was not just clear enough. If you examine those standards thoroughly, you will find the essence; decentralization. The decentralization trend is not only confined in the scope of the technology but also the social phenomenon as well, such as, the democracy in the content authoring and distribution. Yet, the techies would argue that the decentralization technology is not a new thing. Indeed, it is true. Thus, the version number or the name of the new web is determined by the social effects caused by some key technologies rather than the technological advancements alone. Now, we know that the social effects play much more significant role in determining the name of the web.

이름을 짓는 규칙은 단지 새로운 웹을 기존의 것과 다르게 구분하기 위한 것이기에 여기서 크게 중요한 사안은 아니나, 각 버전을 구분하는 명확하고 견고한 기준이 없어 온갖 뒤엉킴과 논쟁들이 발생했다. 혹자는 다양한 관점의 많은 기준들을 통해 Web 2.0의 개념을 도출하려 했으나 명확성이 떨어졌다. 만약, 그러한 다양한 기준들을 면밀하게 살펴본다면 바로 ‘분산’이라는 본질을 찾을 수 있다. ‘분산’이라는 동향은 기술적인 영역에만 국한된 것이 아니라, 컨텐츠 저작과 배포에서의 민주화 등과 같은 사회적 현상에도 영향을 미쳤다. 하지만, 또 기술자들은 분산 기술 자체는 새로운 것이 아니라고 논할지도 모르겠다. 실제로 그렇기 때문이다. 그러므로, 새로운 웹에 대한 버전은 기술적 발전 하나만 가지고 결정되기 보다 몇 핵심적인 기술들에 의해 만들어진 사회적 현상에 의해 결정된다는 것이다. 이제 우리는 사회적 영향이 웹의 새로운 이름을 짓는데 더욱 중요한 역할을 한다는 것을 알고 있다.
 

The ultimate standard to distinguish the versions of the web is us, the actors form the social trend. We create and use the data on the web. At the ultimate level of abstraction, the core functions of the web is just to let people and machines accumulate (create) and use (read) the data across the network. The data itself does not evolve unless the people or the machines interact with it. Thus, when we want to distinguish versions of the web, we have to closely look at the differences in the actors who use the core functions since these bare bone functions will remain the same through the time. The main actor who uses the core functions distinguishes the versions of the web. It is the only distinction standard. Moreover, it also can be used to distinguish the sequels of Web 2.0.

웹의 버전을 결정하는 궁극적인 기준은 바로 사회적 동향을 만들어 내는 우리다. 우리가 웹 상에서 데이터를 만들고 사용한다. 고도의 추상화를 거치다 보면, 웹의 핵심 기능은 사람과 기계가 네트워크 상에서 데이터를 쌓고(저작하고), 사용(읽는)하는 것이다. 데이터 자체는 사람이나 기계의 관여 없이 스스로 진화하지 않는다. 그러므로, 웹의 버전을 구분하기 위해서는 이 핵심 기능을 사용하는 사용자들을 주의 깊게 살펴봐야 한다. 왜냐하면, 시간이 지나도 이 근본적인 핵심 기능들은 변하지 않을 것이기 때문이다. 이러한 핵심 기능을 사용하는 주 사용자가 웹의 버전을 구분한다. 이 것이 단 하나의 구분 기준이 되는 것이다. 게다가, 이러한 구분 기준은 Web 2.0의 다음 버전들에 대한 구분도 가능케 한다.

• Web: Centralized power to accumulate and distribute data.
• Web 2.0: Decentralized power to accumulate and distribute data.
• Web 3.0: Machine extends human powered data.
• Web 4.0: All the offline entities (actors) put their metadata on the web. Now, the web approximates the real world.
• Web 5.0: Actors in public sector, for instance, governments and financial institutions, depend on the web since it has all the data in the world and processing algorithm refined by machines and people’s collaborative intelligence.
• Web: 중앙 집중적 데이터 생성 및 배포
• Web 2.0: 분산된 데이터 생성 및 배포
• Web 3.0: 기계 사람이 축적한 데이터를 확장
• Web 4.0: 모든 오프라인 개체가 메타데이터를 웹으로 올린다. 이제, 웹은 실세계를 거의 완벽한 수준으로 근사한다.
• Web 5.0: 모든 데이터가 존재하고, 그 데이터를 처리하는 알고리즘이 기계와 사람들의 집단 지성으로 인해 정교해져 정부나 금융기관 등의 공공영역에서 웹에 의존한다.

With this clear and concrete distinction standard, it is much less complex to predict the future of the web. In the next post, I will examine the key technological aspects to spawn the distinctively different social phenomenon of Web 3.0.
이러한 명확하고 견고한 구분 기준이 있다면 웹의 미래를 예측하는 것도 그렇게 어렵지는 않다. 다음 글에서는 확연히 다른 Web 3.0의 사회적 현상을 만들어낼 핵심적인 기술 관점들에 대해서 알아보도록 하겠다.

“Unfortunately, the hype surrounding Web 2.0 can lead enterprises to focus on the technologies of Web 2.0, rather than on the community, business and social implications — where true breakthrough value can be realized.”

“불행하게도, Web 2.0에 대한 과대 선전들 때문에 기업들이 실질적 가치 혁신을 실현 할 수 있는 커뮤니티, 비즈니스 그리고 사회적 측면 보다 Web 2.0의 기술에만 집중하게 된다.”

— “Hype Cycle for Web and User Interaction Technologies, 2008”, Gartner

Google is a very strong candidate for the dictatorship in the Internet and the real world as well. Watching CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, mocking the term of Web 2.0 as a mere marketing scheme makes Google’s great image less great since Google is one of the ringleaders of Web 2.0.

구글은 인터넷 뿐 아니라 실제 세상에도 강력한 영향력을 행사 할 수 있는 회사 중의 하나다. 구글의 CEO 에릭 슈밋이 Web 2.0의 개념에 대해 농담조로 마케팅 용어일 뿐이라고 이야기 하는 것을 보니 훌륭하던 구글의 이미지가 조금 덜 훌륭하게 보인다. 왜냐하면, 구글이 바로 Web 2.0 장본인들 중 하나기 때문이다.

It is pointless to argue whether it is a marketing term or not for now, yet his very short-sighted insight on the prediction of Web 3.0, which focuses on the how the apps are built rather than how the community, business and social implications change, is somewhat misleading. We are in the beginning of Web 2.0 and it will take another decade or so to see the Web 3.0. What Eric was telling is about what Google is doing right now in the era of Web 2.0.

지금 여기서 이 용어가 마케팅 용어인지 아닌지 논쟁하는 것은 의미가 없으나, 에릭 슈밋의 Web 3.0에 대한 근시안적인 예측은 Web 3.0에 대하여 커뮤니티, 비즈니스 그리고 사회적 측면에서의 변화보다 소프트웨어 개발 방법 수준의 것으로 오도하고 있다. 우리는 지금 Web 2.0의 시작 시기에 있으며 Web 3.0을 보기 위해서 10년은 더 기다려야 할 것이다. 에릭 슈밋이 이야기 하던 것은 Web 2.0 시점에서 구글이 현재 진행하고 있는 것들에 관한 것이다.

Maybe my expectations were too high due to his physical position, the CEO of Google.

어쩌면, 그가 구글의 CEO이기에 내 기대치가 너무 높았던 것 일 지도 모르겠다.