web 2.0
Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O'Reilly Media in 2004,[1] refers to a supposed second generation of Internet-based services—such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies—that emphasize online collaboration and sharing among users. O'Reilly Media, in collaboration with MediaLive International, used the phrase as a title for a series of conferences and since 2004 it has become a popular (though ill-defined and often criticized) buzzword among technical and marketing communities.
alluding to the version-numbers that commonly designate software upgrade, the phrase "Web 2.0" hints at an improved form of the World Wide Web.
In the opening talk of the first Web 2.0 conference, Tim O'Reilly and John Battelle summarized key principles they believed characterized Web 2.0 applications:
* the Web as a platform
* data as the driving force
* network effects created by an architecture of participation
* innovation in assembly of systems and sites composed by pulling together features from distributed, independent developers (a kind of "open source" development)
* lightweight business models enabled by content and service syndication
* the end of the software adoption cycle ("the perpetual beta")
* software above the level of a single device, leveraging the power of The Long Tail.
Earlier users of the phrase "Web 2.0" employed it as a synonym for "Semantic Web," and indeed, the two concepts complement each other. The combination of social-networking systems such as FOAF and XFN with the development of tag-based folksonomies, delivered through blogs and wikis, sets up a basis for a semantic-web environment. Although the technologies and services that make up Web 2.0 lack the effectiveness of an internet in which the machines can understand and extract meaning (as proponents of the Semantic Web envision), Web 2.0 may represent a step in that direction.
As used by its proponents, the phrase "Web 2.0" refers to one or more of the following:
* The transition of web-sites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality, thus becoming computing platforms serving web applications to end-users
* A social phenomenon embracing an approach to generating and distributing Web content itself, characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, and "the market as a conversation"
* A more organized and categorized content, with a far more developed deeplinking web architecture than hithertofore
* A shift in economic value of the Web, possibly surpassing that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s
* A marketing-term used to differentiate new web-based firms from those of the dot-com boom, which (due to the bust) subsequently appeared discredited
* The resurgence of excitement around the implications of innovative web-applications and services that gained a lot of momentum[citation needed] around mid-2005
Many find it easiest to define Web 2.0 by associating it with companies or products that embody its principles.[citation needed] Tim O'Reilly gave examples in his description of his "four plus one" levels in the hierarchy of Web 2.0-ness:[2]
* Level-3 applications, the most "Web 2.0", which could only exist on the Internet, deriving their power from the human connections and network effects Web 2.0 makes possible, and growing in effectiveness the more people use them. O'Reilly gives as examples: eBay, craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype, dodgeball, and Adsense.
* Level-2 applications, which can operate offline but which gain advantages from going online. O'Reilly cited Flickr, which benefits from its shared photo-database and from its community-generated tag database.
* Level-1 applications, also available offline but which gain features online. O'Reilly pointed to Writely (now Google Docs %26amp; Spreadsheets) (gaining group-editing capability online) and iTunes (because of its music-store portion).
* Level-0 applications would work as well offline. O'Reilly gave the examples of MapQuest, Yahoo! Local, and Google Maps. Mapping applications using contributions from users to advantage can rank as level 2.
* non-web applications like email, instant-messaging clients and the telephone.
Examples of Web 2.0 (other than those cited by O'Reilly) include digg, Shoutwire, last.fm, and Technorati.
Time bar of Web 2.0 buzz words. shows the age of some buzzwords claimed for Web 2.0 or its dependencies.
.
Commentators see many recently-developed concepts and technologies as contributing to Web 2.0, including weblogs, linklogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds and other forms of many-to-many publishing; social software, Web APIs, Web standards, online Web services, and many others.
Proponents of the Web 2.0 concept say that it differs from early Web development (retrospectively labeled Web 1.0) in that it moves away from static web-sites, the use of search engines, and surfing from one website to the next, towards a more dynamic and interactive World Wide Web. Others argue that later developments have not actually superseded the original and fundamental concepts of the WWW. Skeptics may see the term "Web 2.0" as little more than a buzzword; or they may suggest that it means whatever its proponents want it to mean in order to convince their customers, investors and the media that they have begun building something fundamentally new, rather than continuing to develop and use well-established technologies.[4]
On September 30, 2005, Tim O'Reilly wrote a seminal piece ne 2.0, with example sites and services attached.
Earlier web applications or "Web 1.0" (so dubbed after the event by proponents of Web 2.0) often consisted of static HTML pages, rarely (if ever) updated. They depended solely on HTML, which a new Internet content-provider could learn fairly easily. The success of the dot-com era arguably depended on a more dynamic World Wide Web (sometimes labeled Web 1.5) where content-management systems served dynamic HTML web-pages generated on-the-fly from a content database more amenable than raw HTML-code to change. In both senses, marketeers regarded so-called "eyeballing" as intrinsic to the experience of the web, thus making page-hits and visual aesthetics important factors.
Proponents of the Web 2.0 approach believe that web usage has started increasingly moving towards interaction and towards rudimentary social networks, which can serve content that exploits network effects with or without creating a visual, interactive web-page. In one view, Web 2.0 sites act more as points of presence or user-dependent web-portals than as traditional web-sites. They have become so internally complex that new Internet users cannot create analogous web-sites, but remain mere users of services provided by specialist professional experts.
Access to consumer-generated content facilitated by Web 2.0 brings the web closer to Tim Berners-Lee's original concept of the web as a democratic, personal, and DIY medium of communications.
While interested parties continue to debate the definition of a Web 2.0 application, some suggest that a Web 2.0 web-site may exhibit some basic characteristics. These might include:
* "Network as platform" — delivering (and allowing users to use) applications entirely through a browser.[5][6]
* Users owning the data on the site and exercising control over that data.[7][5]
* An architecture of participation and democracy that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.[5][1]
* A rich, interactive, user-friendly interface based on Ajax[5][1] or similar frameworks.
* Some social-networking aspects.[7][5]
The concept of Web-as-participation-platform captures many of these characteristics. Bart Decrem, founder and former CEO of Flock calls Web 2.0 the "participatory Web"[citation needed], and regards Web-as-information-source as Web 1.0.
] Technology overview
The complex and evolving technology infrastructure of Web 2.0 includes server-software, content-syndication, messaging-protocols, standards-based browsers with plugins and extensions, and various client-applications. These differing but complementary approaches provide Web 2.0 with information-storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that go beyond what the public formerly expected of web-sites.
A Web 2.0 website typically features a number of the following techniques:
* Ajax-based rich Internet application techniques
* Non-Ajax-based rich Internet application techniques
* CSS
* Semantically valid XHTML markup and/or the use of Microformats
* Syndication and aggregation of data in RSS/Atom
* Clean and meaningful URLs
* Extensive use of folksonomies (in the form of tags or tagclouds, for example)
* Use of wiki software either completely or partially (where partial use often grows to becoming the complete platform for the site)
* Weblog publishing
* Mashups
* REST or XML Webservice APIs
] Innovations associated with "Web 2.0"
Web-based communities
Some web-sites that potentially sit under the Web 2.0 umbrella have built new online social networks amongst the general public.[citation needed] Some of these sites run social software where people work together.[citation needed] Other sites reproduce several individuals' RSS feeds on one page.[citation needed]
The syndication and messaging capabilities of Web 2.0 have fostered, to a greater or lesser degree, a tightly-woven social fabric among individuals.[citation needed] Arguably, the nature of online communities has changed in recent months and years.[citation needed] The meaning of these inferred changes, however, has pundits divided. Basically, ideological lines run thusly: Web 2.0 either empowers the individual and provides an outlet for the "voice of the voiceless";[citation needed] or it elevates the amateur to the detriment of professionalism, expertise and clarity.[citation needed]
] Web-based applications and desktops
The richer user-experience afforded by Ajax has prompted the development of web-sites that mimic personal computer applications, such as word processing, the spreadsheet, and slide-show presentation. WYSIWYG wiki sites replicate many features of PC authoring applications. Still other sites perform collaboration and project management functions. Java enables sites that provide computation-intensive video capability. Google, Inc. acquired one of the best-known sites of this broad class, Google Docs %26amp; Spreadsheets, in early 2006.
Several browser-based "operating systems" or "online desktops" have also appeared. They essentially function as application platforms, not as operating systems per se. These services mimic the user experience of desktop operating-systems, offering features and applications similar to a PC environment. They have as their distinguishing characteristic the ability to run within any modern browser.
Numerous web-based application services appeared during the dot.com bubble of 1997–2001 and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers. In 2005 WebEx acquired one of the better-known of these, Intranets.com, for slightly more than the total it had raised in venture capital after six years of trading.
[
] Rich Internet application
Recently, rich-Internet application techniques such as Ajax, Adobe Flash, Flex and OpenLaszlo have evolved that can improve the user-experience in browser-based applications. Flash/Flex involves a web-page requesting an update for some part of its content, and altering that part in the browser, without refreshing the whole page at the same time.
] Server-side software
The functionality of Web 2.0 rich Internet applications builds on the existing Web server architecture, but puts much greater emphasis on back-end software. Syndication differs only nominally from the methods of publishing using dynamic content management, but web services typically require much more robust database and workflow support, and become very similar to the traditional intranet functionality of an application server. Vendor approaches to date fall under either a universal server approach, which bundles most of the necessary functionality in a single server platform, or a web-server plugin approach, which uses standard publishing tools enhanced with API interfaces and other tools..
] Client-side software
The extra functionality provided by Web 2.0 depends on the ability of users to work with the data stored on servers. This can come about through forms in an HTML page, through a scripting language such as Javascript, or through Flash or Java. These methods all make use of the client computer to reduce the server workload.
] RSS
Main article: RSS (file format)
The first and the most important step (according to one point of view) of evolution towards Web 2.0 involves the syndication of site content, using standardized protocols which permit end-users to make use of a site's data in another context, ranging from another web-site, to a browser plugin, or to a separate desktop application. Protocols which permit syndication include RSS (Really Simple Syndication — also known as "web syndication"), RDF (as in RSS 1.1), and Atom, all of them flavors of XML. Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend functionality of sites or permit end-users to interact without centralized web-sites. (microformats for more specialized data formats.)
Due to the recent development of these trends, many of these protocols remain de facto (rather than formal) standards.
] Web protocols
Web communication protocols provide a key element of the Web 2.0 infrastructure. Major protocols include REST and SOAP.
* REST (Representational State Transfer) indicates a way to access and manipulate data on a server using the HTTP verbs GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE
* SOAP involves POSTing XML messages and requests to a server that may contain quite complex, but pre-defined, instructions for the server to follow
In both cases, an API defines access to the service. Often servers use proprietary APIs, but standard web-service APIs (for example, for posting to a blog) have also come into wide use. Most (but not all) communications with web services involve some form of XML (eXtensible Markup Language).
Web Services Description Language (WSDL) (the standard way of publishing a SOAP API) and the list of web service specifications for links to many other web service standards, including those many whose names begin 'WS-'.
season's greetings
No comments:
Post a Comment