If you want to make the Semantic Web a reality, stop making the case for it and spend your time doing something more useful, like actually making machines smarter or helping people publish data in a way that’s useful to them.
The W3C is a consortium of mostly for-profit companies and they have things they care about like market share, quarterly profits, and drowning goats (kidding!)… except for GoatCoats.com, anyone can join as long as you pay the membership dues! My point is that because there is a lack of transparency at times, it makes even the best Working Group less responsive to the general public
So, in 2010 we kicked off the JSON-LD work by making it radically open and we fought for that openness every step of the way. Anyone can join the group, anyone can vote on decisions, anyone can join the teleconferences, there are no closed door sessions, and we record the audio of every meeting.
Bad feature ideas can be argued for months and rationalized because smart people, lacking any sort of compelling real world data, are great at debating and rationalizing bad decisions.
That said, after 7+ years of being involved with Semantic Web / Linked Data, our company has never had a need for a quad store, RDF/XML, N3, NTriples, TURTLE, or SPARQL. When you chair standards groups that kick out “Semantic Web” standards, but even your company can’t stomach the technologies involved, something is wrong.
But interactive experience requires an openness that social media platforms were unable to provide. There was a gradual conversion by social media of the internet user as an active participant in a viable community to a passive consumer of advertising and manipulative media.
As we discussed in our conversation with Amy Burvall, the history of how the content was created becomes part of the content. The interactivity enabled by the content becomes part of the content. Creativity and consumption collapse into a single activity.
The difference between previous iterations of learning technology and that which we are experiencing with E-Learning 3.0 is that these creative activities become distributed and democratized.
I would agree E-Learning as an experience is different than the other iterations of @Downes classes but I wouldn't label E-Learning 3.0 just as I wouldn't label Web 2.0 or Web 3.0....Progression assumes progress.not sure that is direction web has had in last decade of so called "Web 2.0"