And I never focus on technology in the “what is” conversation. Anything 2.0 focuses on people, not technology.

We are not talking about technology, but application. Web 2.0 uses AJAX, E2.0 uses AJAX. Just like enterprise software (ERP, CRM, BI) and consumer software (MS Word, Excel, Movie Maker ), may all be programmed in C++ using Object Oriented techniques, but the classification is still useful because E2.0 apps and Web2.0 apps are not going to be the same (may have overlap), but they will use the same underlying techniques.

We are in the business of selling software that is useful to companies. So the whole point is to build applications for companies that will be useful to companies using the techniques Web2.0 has created.

I know we have a product mismatch, WebCenter Vs. Ruby on Rails, lightweight / heavyweight too… but that can be discussed some other time.

Fenton

Fire up the 4 hours 17 minutes and 55 seconds of 'General Session Participate 08' and then fast forward the slider to about half way through. It's a bit hit and miss but once you see Andrew McAfee's bald head you'll know you're in the right spot.

-Sean

Do you have a link for McAfee's session/keynote? Drop me a note, and we can talk about AppsLab and helping out, if you want. We always like help.

Were you in Chicago last week – http://www.bea.com/participate?

Watch the Andrew McAfee session if you have the time. And Apps Lab sounds very interesting. Do you need help from down under?

-Sean

Sitting on the fence. Of course, the longer we go with it, the harder it will be to return to regular comments and lose all these.

Things I've heard that people don't like:
- No trackback/pingback feature. Trackbacks cannot display as comments.
- Lack of blogger admin features

Techmeme had a few posts about disqus today. Check it out, worth a read: http://www.techmeme.com/080516/p9#a080516p9

We're on the fence so far about Disqus; maybe you can elaborate why you like it?

And two, social media participation is still somewhat small out there right now. Asking employees who may not be on social networks or Twitter to suddenly start to participate is a big deal. You can't just drop a load of software on them and say, “have at it!”. Employees will need some help getting there.

I did write a blog post on exactly this subject, “Do Companies Need Social Media Managers?” It's here, if you want to check it out: http://tinyurl.com/5aglkw

BTW – I like that you've got disqus enabled.

The problem is that Web 2.0 is in people's heads as something to care about, but also something that's for kids and therefore can't be for big serious business.

Maybe this time next year someone will have coined a better term.

I do agree that Web 2.0 suffers from an image problem. When you mention “Web 2.0″ people tend to think that this refering to a “suite of new generation tools”. But Web 2.0 is much more than just tools as you know.

So should Web 2.0 in the workplace be rebranded to “Enterprise 2.0″? Maybe this is just a marketing ploy to get the suits on board with the concept. If it is, and it does, does the end result justify the means?

So here's my dilema. I have to engage and raise awareness to Web 2.0 to the business comunity in Oracle EMEA. How do I brand the communication? Web 2.0 or Enterprise 2.0? Maybe I should use both?

Answers on a postcard …..

Communities have different goals. Business is a community. Facebook is a community. I'm reading that as exactly agreeing with me.

However, I agree with you.

I do think, however, figuring out how to harness the value of web2.0 inside a business, to the benefit of corporate objectives is goodness and does warrant articulation, focus and [gasp] strategy. I'm not talking about how to get IM clients to an entire workforce or how to control tag entries against a “blacklist” of inappropriate language. I'm talking about a strategic focus on how to break down organizational barriers when they get in the way of innovation, communication, ideation, etc. etc.

In addition I'm talking about aligning this community around the goals of the business so that all this community-goodness is channelled to the best strategic benefit of the company. Now that is something that I can get behind, and I don't care what you call it!

You mention “standards” and “knowledge bases” which are corporate buzzwords, so doesn't Web 2.0 already have those already? Or at least they're already moving that way? RESTful APIs, OpenSocial, Data Portability aren't official standards, but supporting them allows you to do more. Flickr, Box.net, Google Apps are all non-traditional knowledge bases.

By calling something Enterprise 2.0, the implication is that it's not Web 2.0. Most E 2.0 really is Web 2.0 with a spin. However, the risk I see is companies building convoluted software and apps for enterprises that lose the social benefits of Web 2.0.