I'm going far out on a limb. Internet.next, Web 2.0, semantic web,
Internet 2.0, and similar monikers are marketing names for the
read-write web. The technical distinction between the read-mostly,
Internet 1.0 world and the meme-space known as Web 2.0 is that
all of the examples of Web 2.0 involve end users writing data
to the network. Once you start creating and consuming, you're
worried about metadata, relationships, rights, derivative uses,
attribution, distribution and location of your bits.
Everything that Tim O'Reilly posits as Web 2.0 examples is distinguished from a Web 1.0 counterpoint as being writeable. Three words: read-write web.
If you want to hear me rant and rave about this, and the wonders of transactional semantics in the filesystem (and believe me, they're related), check out Richard Giles' I/O Podcast, which we recorded about sixteen hours ago. Richard called me via Skype; I was sitting in a Sun drop-in work center (watching my Devils lose via real-time play by play broadcast by nhl.com); the whole thing went from talking to streaming in a matter of hours.
Consumers (me) are creators (also me). Read-write.