Comments on: Semantics 2.0

By: Tom Kuhlmann

Tom Kuhlmann — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:24:30 +0000

Sometimes you just have to leave out letters because speculators have purchased every available word combination.

By: Dave Ferguson

Dave Ferguson — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 14:54:58 +0000

Jay, I had not thought of the capital L and the missing A, and did not mean to sound rude. I apologize.

I think these things are much more acceptable from individuals than from large organizations, where the bandwagons are much larger, thus both harder to start and harder to stop.

I certainly sympathize with the need for a unique tag. The name of my personal blog for the unworkshop is Agam Fhéin.

Looks great, huh? It’s Scots Gaelic for “mine.”

By: Administrator

Administrator — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:29:55 +0000

You hit the nail on the head, Dave. Of course, sometimes leaving out a letter makes a unique tag to search on, e.g. informL. Don’t mind me; I’m just being defensive.

By: Dave Ferguson

Dave Ferguson — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 14:47:47 +0000

As Christine Lavin noted, “there’s a mighty fine line / between a groove and a rut / a fine line between ‘eccentrics’ / and people who are just plain nuts.”

When your mental energy goes into the “2.0″ part, or trying to get people to adopt the terminology rather than the accomplishment, you risk crossing that mighty fine line.

One computer services firm I’m familiar with made a big splash about changing its name to show it too was “an internet company.” Part of the wondrous paradigm shift: the new name had the word “exchange” in it, and they capitalized the X.

Now, of course, you leave out letters (Flickr) or add numbers (Web 2.0) to show you’re not following a trend.

By: DJ Alchemi

DJ Alchemi — Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:38:08 +0000

E-learning 2.0, whatever that is

What is E-learning 2.0? Well first of all it’s a rhetorical manoeuvre by e-learning suppliers and consultants to distance themselves from the failures of the first wave of e-learning. Secondly…