Web 2.not for me

The DCC’s Chris Rusbridge recently speculated on whether we wanted repositories to be more Web 2.0-like. The post was a follow-on to an earlier thought on negative cost click repositories, where Chris pondered the merits of depositing if the cost of deposit was less than the cost of non-deposit, hence the term ‘negative-cost’ (later changed to negative click) repository. In the latest post, Chris proposes that ‘going Web 2.0′ is not necessarily a good thing, mentioning an irony-strewn attempt made by two Oxford students to minimise the “multitude of different websites” used for groups to remain organised online … by creating another site which does not appear to import or bring in data from any other sites. Indeed, registering for GroupSpaces.com confirms as much – it’s adding another tool to the list and fattening the problem pig that the founders moaned about in the first place. Why on earth should we manually add an event when it could be pulled in dynamically from a specified online calendar?

On a separate note, Chris thought that all his management identity problems might be “solved by OpenID or something like it”. I found this interesting, as I have used my OpenID login details so sparsely, I cannot even remember which provider I initially chose. It took a search-and-trial-and-error approach before I found the correct site and then the correct sign-in details. In fact, after visiting OpenID.net, I found out I could actually have used my Flickr sign-on details without even creating a separate OpenID account in the first place.

And as for Chris wanting to “emerge into the Web 2.0 sunshine” … how can you apply rounded corners to the sun?’

About these ads