There are always lessons in history, if we are prepared to learn from them, and I come from the BW (Before Windows) era, a time which does have some things to teach us, I feel.  

For example, there came the point of IoW (Initiation of Windows) where a whole new golden future opened up before us – theoretically, at least. In practice, of course, it’s early days achieved very little and gained very little market traction. Then came Windows 2, which those with long memories will recall moved the world forward hardly at all. 

It was only when Windows 3 appeared that potential users not only started to understand what was possible but to make the move to adopt it. But even then, it still had its problems with bugs and the like and it was not until the arrival of Windows 3.1 that the system gained a measure of reliability that gave users real confidence in not just its capabilities but its survivability in the real world. 

But its success was such that the `Version 3.1’ tag became the accepted nomenclature of an acceptable level of product maturity for a wide range of software products. There is a learning here, I feel, which is particularly important for any business looking to make web services an integral part of their operational business process infrastructure.  

Web 2.0 has already become an important marketing tag – in fact `2.0’ is being applied to just about everything and anything to do with IT systems these days. As a catch-all handle to define the next step forward I guess it even works, up to a point at least. But history shows that `Version 2.0’ as a half-hearted miss, and we are already seeing signs of the problem now.  

Web 2.0 is demonstrating some interesting and powerful potential, particularly in the way mashup capabilities are pointing to entirely new ways in which specific composite applications can create new functionality. It is only a step to think in terms of extending the idea into exploiting enterprise infrastructures to create some potentially truly powerful services.  

The downside of this, at the moment, is that there has been little or no thought applied to the management of such capabilities or their governance. For example, the fact that an individual can think of a new way of processing insurance claims by mashing up some legacy and new applications in a novel fashion does not mean it is a good idea – in business process management terms – to do it. History shows that there needs to be a balance between the `that’s cool’ application of technology just because we can, and the `yes but….’ of ensuring that the reasons for its existence is understood and justified, and that it operates in a reliable and predictable manner. 

Historically, the `yes but….’  came with the appearance of Version 3.1, and that part of the relationship between the Web and enterprise infrastructure has still to be reached.