In the race to coin new technical terms and phrases that generally only serve to confuse the masses, we now have upon us the dawn of a new term "Web 3.0." 
To present a bit of a timeline:

I am willing to wager that most people would consider the movement into "Web 1.0" started sometime in late 1994/early 1995 when Netscape released the first versions of its Navigator browser.  This event was basically the catalyst which started to bring "The Internet" as we know it into a more mainstream setting.  I realize that some of the more tech savvy out there would argue that "The Internet" is actually quite a bit older than that, and I will concede that point, but for the sake of argument let's also agree that the internet was nowhere near what one could consider mainstream. 

The term Web 2.0 was originally mentioned (according to Wikipedia) in an article by Darcy DiNucci titled Fragmented Future.  Although Darcy's train of thought was kind of on the right path, the reality of what Web 2.0 eventually became is lot more broad.  As such, the "Web 2.0" moniker is more generally credited to Tim O'Reilly who used the term again at the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference in 2004.  O'Reilly's vision is much more on par with what we generally consider to be "Web 2.0" today.  That is, the evolution into web based communities, collaboration, communication, and real time data and information sharing.  Sites like blogs, wikis, social networking communities as well as the broadcast of information through podcasts are primarily what shape what is Web 2.0 today.

So, now that all of this data is out there on the web, what are we going to do with it?  Enter "Web 3.0".  What Web 3.0 is intended to be is the method by which all of the data and facts introduced as part of Web 2.0 will be mined and used.  This will likely end up getting used mostly by large marketing companies who will be looking for new and inventive ways to target ads in popups and web pages and spam to users. 

The question that I have is, why is this "Web 3.0" ?  In the software world, when a product or service goes up a whole major version number (the major version is typically the number to the left of the decimal point) it is usually because what is being introduced is significantly different, better, or enhanced over the previous version.  In moving from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 this change in vernacular made sense.  It was the movement from the web as a static content delivery vehicle to one where content was made much more interactive.  It really was a drastic paradigm shift in how the web was used by both users as well as service providers.  The movement from the posting of data and content to the mining of that information seems more like a logical next step in how web content would be used and is hardly a significant change in thought process or a drastic change in how the internet is interacted with.  As such, I don't see what is being done as worthy of coining a new phrase. 

I know that "Web 2.1" doesn't sound nearly as exciting or as sexy as Web 3.0, but let's call it what it is: a logical progression, not an internet shaking movement.