The document discusses the evolution from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0, emphasizing the transformative potential of Platform as a Service (PaaS) and the need for technology to enable more creative and innovative experiences. It highlights the importance of multi-tenant architecture, which supports efficient sharing and customization while allowing users to easily create and manipulate digital content. Web 3.0 aims to redefine interactions on the internet, demanding significant functional enhancements rather than mere technical improvements.

1. World Wide Platform: What Makes It Web 3.0
The Genius of the Planet Comes to PaaS
Peter Coffee
salesforce.com inc.
Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0.

2. Contents
Why 3.0 Is More Than Just a Number ................................................................................................... 1
Technology is an input, not an experience
Emergence is the product of disappearance
Technology as Enabler .......................................................................................................................... 2
Multi-tenant architecture: key to “Level 3”
Privacy is not confinement
The Future Must Be More Than Merely “Cloudy” ................................................................................ 3
Enabling creation
Avoiding duplication
Assuring satisfaction
The People are the Computer ................................................................................................................ 3
The bad news is that this is a truly
intense technical and business
undertaking, and not for the faint of heart.
The good news is that what it makes
possible is magical.
Marc Andreessen,
“The Three Kinds of Platforms You Meet on the Internet”
Any technology distinguishable from
magic is insufficiently advanced.
Gehm's Corollary to Clarke's Third Law
W orld W ide Platform: W hat Makes It W eb 3.0

3. Why 3.0 Is More Than Just a Number
For more than two decades, the version number has been part of everyday language. It would be hard to say which
software product update brought the expression, “SomethingSomething 2.0,” into common use: perhaps it was the
March 1983 release of Microsoft MS-DOS 2.0, with its first major expansion of the power (and the complexity) of
the first ubiquitous desktop software platform.
Regardless of who gets the credit for the label, people immediately grasped the promise implied by changing the
number to the left of the decimal point – denoting a substantial increase in capability, rather than the minor
enhancements and repairs implied by a right-of-decimal “point release.” That’s why Tim O’Reilly’s coinage in
2004 of the phrase, “Web 2.0” (in connection with his subsequent series of “Web 2.0 Summit” conferences) has
Stages of Sharing been controversial ever since—and even those who accept O’Reilly’s 2.0 label may look askance at more recent
mentions of “Web 3.0.”
The generations of the Web
are best defined, not by their Following a conference in September 2007, Network World paraphrased industry analysts 1 as saying that “the
technology, but by the [Web 3.0] buzzword is really just a marketing ploy used to hype incremental improvements over the
possibilities they create and the
groundbreaking technologies that were labeled Web 2.0…”; one analyst was quoted as saying, “There are a lot of
experiences that they enable.
constituencies trying to hijack the term.”
:: Web 1.0 Technology is an input, not an experience
What others know, you can find; The error that’s made by many would-be definers of “Web 3.0” is the confusion of the tool with the function.
what others sell, you can buy Many have suggested that the original Web was all about the HTML markup language and the HTTP protocol for
linking and retrieving web pages; that Web 2.0 was all about the RSS protocol for sharing content and the Web
:: Web 2.0 services protocols (such as REST and SOAP) for sharing function.
What anyone thinks, imagines or These conceptions of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 are too technology-centric. They lead to irrelevant argument over the
creates, everyone can discuss
role of various technology developments in defining Web 3.0. There’s a pointless war in progress among the
:: Web 3.0 proponents of richer semantic context, of sensor-centered rather than human-centered content, and of qualitative
change in experience resulting from quantitative growth in bandwidth as Web 3.0’s true hallmarks.
What anyone conceives and
implements, everyone can apply Emergence is the product of disappearance
For those who use a technology, rather than those who create and deploy it, a technical success is almost literally
The advent of the Platform as a invisible. The successful tool is the one that disappears into its function, in the phrase of philosopher Martin
Service makes it possible for Heidegger in The Origin of the Work of Art.
anyone with functional
expertise to package it, publish  The success of the IBM Personal Computer was that it made the actual computer nearly invisible to the
it, and put it to work wherever user – unlike earlier hobbyist-oriented machines that exposed far more of the machine’s internal
there’s an Internet connection.
workings at a level that required the user’s attention and understanding
PaaS is the next step in  The success of VisiCalc, the first packaged spreadsheet application, was that it made the products of
making our most sophisticated custom programming possible without most of the coding effort previously required for similar tasks
tools “disappear into their
function.”  The initial success of Web browsers was that they enabled access to a global network while hiding the
acts and mechanisms of connection
 The current and growing success of the Wiki and the blog, two of the most common user experiences
associated with “Web 2.0,” comes from letting people create and combine Web content with no need to
understand or control the mechanisms that made it happen
Web 3.0, the next major step, is
therefore best defined by what it
hides, rather than by the
technology it uses: that is, by its
success in hiding the
Web 1.0: Transact
mechanisms of creating and
sharing new function and new
behavior, going beyond the Web 2.0: Participate
sharing of static content or even
dynamic discussions of content.
Web 3.0 is best defined by the
opportunity for everyone to
Web 3.0: Innovate
program: the emergence of the
platform as a service.
1
Brodkin, Jon, “Gartner touts Web 2.0, scoffs at sequel,” networkworld.com, 21 September 2007
W orld W ide Platform: W hat Makes It W eb 3.0 1

4. Technology as Enabler
Technologies do not define the generations of the Web, but they can serve as crucial enablers.
 The key conception of the Internet itself, as a dumb network2 with all of its intelligence at the
endpoints, enabled ad hoc introduction of new types of content without the permission of any one
network operator. If a new content type had even a single creator with even a single consumer, there
was value. This enabled the explosive growth of Web 1.0 – which then evolved the security and
payment systems required to support a marketplace of goods as well as ideas.
 The Web’s tools for exchanging content became a medium for requesting and delivering action with
Multi-Tenant Architecture the advent of XML and related Web services protocols. This paved the way for publication to
Paves the Path to Web 3.0 become participation – which enabled Web 2.0 as a forum of communities and services.
Multi-tenant architecture shuns  To expand the scope of the Web from participation to innovation, there must be scalable platforms
wasteful duplication and costly, that invite the expression of useful knowledge in a form that’s easy for others to discover and use—
error-prone redundant
without high costs of entry, and with an affordable model of growing capacity to support an
maintenance while still
preserving an open ecosystem innovation’s success. The resulting liberation of innovation is the essence of Web 3.0.
for competition and refinement. Marc Andreessen, co-author of the first Web browser, has labeled the required model as the “Level 3 platform,” or
“runtime environment”—which offers, he has said, a “magical” set of possibilities. In his widely cited blog post,
:: Data “The three kinds of platforms you meet on the Internet,” he elaborated:
Rather than creating and
manipulating separate data
The level of technical expertise required of someone to develop on your platform drops by at least 90%, and
structures in identical database the level of money they need drops to $0…The rate of rapid evolutionary application development that can
stacks, the developer in the result from this approach will, I think, be mind-boggling as it plays out.
multi-tenant environment is
actually creating and editing Multi-tenant architecture: key to “Level 3”
metadata representations.
Achieving the technical simplification and the affordable access of Andreessen’s “Level 3” requires a complete
The operators of the shared
rethinking of how to deliver innovative IT function, whether the intended user is the individual or the enterprise.
environment can optimize
performance, perform data At global scale, it’s unthinkable to require wasteful and error-prone duplication of IT assets that add no distinctive
backups, and incrementally add value. The fraction of the world’s hard disk space that holds essentially identical (and redundantly maintained)
capacity without disruption. copies of operating systems and database engines is enormous today; potentially crippling tomorrow.
:: Logic What’s needed instead is a model in which all common capability is shared, while all distinctive assets—whether
data, logic, or definitions of end-user experience—are rigorously and securely partitioned. A single foundation of
Rather than letting individual code is shared by all users, while all other assets are represented to that shared platform as metadata.
customizations leak into a
foundation code base, multi-
tenant environments rigorously
 Partitioning of data, rather than being expensively achieved by deploying multiple instances of a code
separate custom logic from stack, becomes instead an element of the platform’s design—in the same way that buyers on eBay or
shared platform facilities. Amazon.com have confidential access to their individual purchase histories.
Updates to the foundation code  Customization of application behavior, rather than being done by modifying application code, is done
need never break or interfere instead by configuring metadata that’s invoked on a user-by-user basis—in the same way that
with distinctive customizations.
different users of the “iGoogle” personal home page see different arrangements of information and
New features are not imposed,
but rather offered for function when logging in to that shared service.
enablement—immediate, or
deferred, or declined—on a This model can be compared to an apartment building, with tenants sharing the costs of lobby services and laundry
user-by-user basis. rooms and other key facilities while still having locks on their own doors and freedom to decorate their own
rooms—hence the label of “multi-tenant architecture.”
:: Integration
Broad statements about the limitations of multi-tenant architecture are often inaccurate generalizations describing
Non-proprietary interfaces such shallow designs. There is no inherent reason why metadata representation can not accommodate the full scope of
as Web services let the
innovator choose from multiple
an innovator’s originality—but platform choice requires due diligence in recognizing differences in depth.
providers of complementary
tools and resources. Privacy is not confinement
It’s essential to appreciate that the protections of multi-tenancy are not restrictions. Non-proprietary interface
conventions, in particular those of Web services, allow multiple providers of platforms and resources to offer
complementary environments and tools.
For every integration scenario—custom coding, native connectors to specific software products, middleware
layers facilitating multi-way integration, coupling with personal productivity applications, or user interface
integrations of the type often dubbed the “mash-up”—there are options available that let innovators choose their
own balance between flexibility, capability, and speed of solution deployment while still gaining the full
advantages of a Platform as a Service.
2
Isenberg, David, “Rise of the Stupid Network,” Computer Telephony, August 1997
W orld W ide Platform: W hat Makes It W eb 3.0 2

5. The Future Must Be More Than Merely “Cloudy”
If the goal is for the tool to disappear into the function, it follows that a left-of-decimal uptick—such as the one
from Web 2.0 to Web 3.0—must represent a significant growth of function, and not merely an impressive
enlargement of the tool kit.
What a Web 3.0 Platform Moving the present day’s cumbersome and error-prone process of application development off of local
Must Provide infrastructure, and into an Internet “cloud computing” facility, simply is not enough to justify the uptick to 3.0.
There must be a radical simplification, not merely a relocation.
Web 3.0 is merely potential
unless it offers something Enabling creation
more, not merely something
different, than earlier A Level 3 caliber of Platform as a Service can enable a Web 3.0 transformation of experience—but only if it
incarnations of the Web. liberates creative energy. The platform must be open to the definition of data models that map closely to an
expert’s understanding of a problem or a task. It must have powerful notations for expressing knowledge in the
:: Creation form of reliable and powerful logic. It must give the expert a blank canvas on which to draw a user interface that
makes the power of knowledge and data readily discoverable by the person with a problem to be solved. The
Web 3.0 must make it radically Force.com platform from salesforce.com meets these needs with its database capabilities, workflow and Apex
easier to create new capability,
and not merely move today’s
Code tools, and Visualforce user interface technology that enables astonishingly rapid design and refinement.
cumbersome process of
development into the cloud Avoiding duplication
The tyranny of “good enough” will cripple the potential of Web 3.0 if a Platform as a Service requires redundant
:: Leverage re-implementation of systems that are already working. The Force.com platform shuns wasteful duplication by
offering an extensive variety of integration points, ranging from custom code interfaces to packaged integration
Existing IT assets, and the best
of the emerging ecosystem of appliances; the developer can gain full leverage from legacy IT assets or from the best of the emerging ecosystem
new cloud-computing resources, of complementary Web services or from storage, computational, or other bulk resources available in the cloud.
must be accessible resources for
the Web 3.0 developer Assuring satisfaction
Widespread adoption of the Web has generated high expectations (and rapidly rising demands) for availability,
:: Assurance security, confidentiality and data integrity. Web 3.0 offerings can not expect a favorable reception if they offer the
Platforms as a Service must be “new” at the expense of the “now.” The applications built with the creative vigor and entrepreneurial spirit of Web
highly available, certifiably 3.0 must be born, so to speak, already grown up: that is, with the same robustness as existing Web offerings. The
secure, reliably confidential, and Force.com platform gives creative and entrepreneurial developers the assurance of proven reliability, auditable
robust in capacity and
performance
security, and enterprise-scale robustness as a foundation for what they bring into the world.
The Force.com platform from
The People are the Computer
salesforce.com is ready to If Tim O’Reilly gets the credit for “Web 2.0,” then Sun Microsystems’ John Gage must get the credit for the
serve—and to liberate the coinage “The Network is the Computer”—but Gage, like O’Reilly, has been overtaken. The collaboration in
planet-wide wave of creative content of Web 2.0 has been succeeded by the liberation of creativity of Web 3.0 and the Platform as a Service.
output that will make “Web 3.0”
a label worth defining The appeal of PaaS is internationally acknowledged. In June 2008, industry analyst Fredric Paul asserted3 that
PaaS resources “make leading-edge technology available to everyone, including consumers, often at a far lower
cost than businesses pay for similar or inferior services.” Another industry observer, in Bangalore, reported in the
same month4 that PaaS is “driving a change on how future application software will be and should be developed,
installed, delivered, and managed” and that it is being considered by “every major [developer], in any space.”
When the burdens of hardware and code disappeared into mass-market technology, the network added the value;
as the physical network disappears into the abstractions of the Web, we can rediscover that it is people who are the
true source of value. Web 3.0 brings global talent to PaaS.
3
Paul, Fredric, “SMBs Will Rise To Cloud Computing,” informationweek.com, 21 June 2008
4
Akhouri, Priyanka, “SaaS Healing Business Pain Points, Say ISVs,” cxotoday.com/India, 27 June 2008