Part of the challenge for technology decision-makers in a Web2.0 era is that innovation is progressing faster than can be tracked.

The principle criticism of the trend centres on the fact that the technological progress of the Internet is permanently in motion, it's a continual effort by a huge number of people in a bewildering array of areas, and so to claim land and title over it with a marketing idea is not well received by many.

It's a valid point when you even just start scratching the surface into some of the many areas, particularly those of the Semantic Web or XML Web services, where there is much overlap and R&D has been ongoing for many years before the term was invented.

I guess the main argument I'd put forward for it is that open source is a philosophy of freedom of information and ideas, as well as software, and whatever works to make more people aware and curious about it so they get more involved, the better. If that means a simple, easy-to-repeat term like Web2.0, then why not. And look at this way, thankfully no one really calls it "the blogosphere" quite so much any more. Phew! :-)

The main action I'd suggest is to zoom in on individual technology developments, isolating out what their capabilities are, and to understand how they and other developments can be combined to achieve solutions.

For example, check out this article by Soenke Ziesche on XML.com, Semantic Wikis and Disaster Relief Operations [1]. There are a few different perspectives I'd highlight about this:

• It highlights the continuum of Internet development - Where does Web2.0 end, associated mainly with blogs and wikis, and the Semantic Web begin, the machine-readable Internet. Soeke gives a great example of how it's all just one and the same thing, giving a real-world use-case for ‘Semantic Wikis [2]'.
• It's solution-oriented. In an era of Climate Change expertise like this is valuable not just to the commercial world but also potentially in life-saving terms too.
• It's implementable (sort of). Given the open availability of both the software and the original ideas of the author, to some degree it is a blueprint that any one can reuse.
• It's cutting edge ‘Enterprise 2.0' - Disaster Relief is one scenario it can be applied to, but it keenly demonstrates what and how ‘agile working' can be used to achieve.

As I write this the rain that has been pouring non-stop where I live in Scotland and I can look out my window and see a rising river threatening to come into my house for a look around.

I know this is nothing compared to what happens elsewhere but still finishing this article will be difficult from a dinghy, and it makes me ask questions like what preparations should I make just in case, are the roads blocked where I need to travel to to collect my family, and if the river swells passed a certain flooding point, will the local council services alert me in some way?

Many other questions, and so it's very easy to imagine that in a much larger, more urgent and deadly scenario, the need for rapid co-ordination is essential, and so innovation like Soenke's work can be seen within this type of context.

So it's an IT solution, but it's quite unique. I doubt there are many IT suppliers you can go to and ask for ‘one Disaster Relief Operations solution please'. The software is easily available, but applying it in this kind manner looks like it needs quite a specialized program around it. From the article there is a link to the Humanitarian Center for Pakistan [3], which looks like an implementation of this kind of thing, using ‘p-codes' and the like.

Therefore to be a total solution to a total need, its likely many of these software systems will need surrounding implementation expertise, and if you're wondering how to begin participation in iFOSSF [3], this is one good way to start.

We're looking to continually report on the ongoing progress of developments happening out there in the market, and a great way to do this is in the form of outlining solutions. A brief overview of the technology followed by a use-case scenario is a great way for any type of reader to identify with what you're working on. You might not even have invented the product in question, just be using it in some practical way, perhaps in education or commerce; this is all fine, it's principally the practical solutions that others can adopt we're looking for.