Hi Kim, I have read all the replies, and I must say, as an outsider to the BBC and the Web2 concept... that the technical jargon in the list is overwhelming and therefore confusing to me. I respect the fact that my point of view is therefore pretty unenlightening, but it would seem that the principle is to look at web2 as some kind of organisation or club, great if you have the idea for membership, but as has been mentioned the "tenet" of all this technology is to further the interaction of myself, ie. Joe Public, within the internet. I think that it is very positive for the BBC to have a three year strategy ... but I would also hope that history would exclude the possibility of such a tight "club like" response to the increasingly complex set of technologies which allow content to be delivered via web pages to the user. The past is littered with examples of conceptual frameworks that have held the originators back, mostly corporate structures, whilst allowing other free thinkers to push ahead in various beneficial directions.
I hope you appreciate, as I do, that this is my own opinion, but it may give you some balance from the outside world when you come to clarify the management of this "new" structure for those within the Beeb. Please remember that the users as well as the providers have a choice that is exercised whenever they use the web, and therefore all these structures have to be liquid in conception. Have fun:) Richard Edwards On Friday, July 14, 2006, at 06:20PM, Kim Plowright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ><<Original Attached>> - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
