Web 2.0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.61.63.196 (talk) at 21:52, 20 March 2007 (→‎See also). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Web 2.0, a phrase coined by O'Reilly Media in 2004,[1] refers to a perceived second generation of web-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 the term has been widely adopted.

Though the term suggests a new version of the Web, it does not refer to an update to Internet or World Wide Web technical standards, but to fundamental shifts in how those standards are used. Because of this some technology-focused experts, notably Tim Berners-Lee,[2] have questioned whether the term is meaningful. In this context, Tim O'Reilly's characterization of Web 2.0 is clarifying:

"Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform."[3]

Introduction

Time bar of Web 2.0 buzz words.[4] This image shows the age of some buzzwords sometimes used in Web 2.0 lingo and its dependencies.

Alluding to the version-numbers that commonly designate software upgrades, the phrase "Web 2.0" hints at an improved form of the World Wide Web; and advocates suggest that technologies such as weblogs, social bookmarking, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds (and other forms of many-to-many publishing), social software, Web APIs, Web standards and online Web services imply a significant change in web usage.

As used by its proponents, the phrase "Web 2.0" can also refer 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"
  • Enhanced organization and categorization of content, emphasizing deeplinking
  • A rise or fall in the economic value of the Web, possibly surpassing the impact of the dot-com boom of the late 1990s

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.[citation needed]

On September 30, 2005, Tim O'Reilly wrote a piece summarizing the subject. The mind-map pictured above (constructed by Markus Angermeier on November 11 2005) sums up the memes of Web 2.0, with example-sites and services attached.

In the opening talk of the first Web 2.0 conference, Tim O'Reilly and John Battelle summarized key principles of 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.
  • easy to pick up by early adopters

Tim O'Reilly gave examples of companies or products that embody these principles in his description of his "four plus one" levels in the hierarchy of Web 2.0-ness: [5]

  • 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 that 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 (since 10 October 2006: Google Docs & Spreadsheets, offering 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.

Characteristics of "Web 2.0"

While interested parties continue to debate the definition of a Web 2.0 application, a Web 2.0 web-site may exhibit some basic characteristics. These might include:

The impossibility of excluding group-members who don’t contribute to the provision of goods from sharing profits gives rise to the possibility that rational members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and free-ride on the contribution of others.[8][9]

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"[10] 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 may typically feature a number of the following techniques:

Innovations associated with "Web 2.0"

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 computationally intensive video capability. Google, Inc. acquired one of the best-known sites of this broad class, Writely.

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 applications

Main article: 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. These technologies allow a web-page to request an update for some part of its content, and to alter that part in the browser, without needing to refresh the whole page at the same time.

Server-side software

The functionality of Web 2.0 s 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 workloads.

RSS

Syndication of site content is considered a Web 2.0 feature, involving 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 the functionality of sites or permit end-users to interact without centralized web-sites. (See microformats for more specialized data formats.)

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).

See also 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-'.

Criticism

Given the lack of set standards as to what "Web 2.0" actually means, implies, or requires, the term can mean radically different things to different people.

Many of the ideas of Web 2.0 already featured on networked systems well before the term "Web 2.0" emerged. Amazon.com, for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002.[11] Prior art also comes from research in computer-supported collaborative learning and computer-supported cooperative work and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino.

Conversely, when a web-site proclaims itself "Web 2.0" for the use of some trivial feature (such as blogs or gradient-boxes) observers may generally consider it more an attempt at self-promotion than an actual endorsement of the ideas behind Web 2.0. "Web 2.0" in such circumstances has sometimes sunk simply to the status of a marketing buzzword, like "synergy", that can mean whatever a salesperson wants it to mean, with little connection to most of the worthy but (currently) unrelated ideas originally brought together under the "Web 2.0" banner.

The argument also exists that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of World Wide Web at all, but merely continues to use "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts. Clearly, techniques such as AJAX are not a replacement for underlying protocols like HTTP but an additional layer of abstraction on top of them.

Other criticism has included the term "a second bubble", (referring to the Dot-com bubble of circa 1995–2001), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop the same product with a lack of business models. The Economist has written of "Bubble 2.0".[12]

Venture capitalist Josh Kopelman noted that Web 2.0 excited only 53,651 people (the number of subscribers to TechCrunch, a Weblog covering Web 2.0 matters), too few users to make them an economically-viable target for consumer applications.[13] (However, this criticism misses the point that millions of people may use Web 2.0 applications — such as Wikipedia or MySpace — benefitting from the networks without needing to understand the term 'Web 2.0' specifically.)

Trademark

In November 2003, CMP Media applied to the USPTO for a service mark on the use of the term "WEB 2.0" for live events. [14] On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a cease-and-desist demand to the Irish non-profit organization IT@Cork on May 24, 2006,[15] but retracted it two days later.[16] The "WEB 2.0" service mark registration passed final PTO Examining Attorney review on May 10, 2006, but as of June 12, 2006 the PTO had not published the mark for opposition. The European Union application (which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland) remains pending (app no 004972212) after its filing on March 23, 2006.

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c Paul Graham (2005). "Web 2.0". Retrieved 2006-08-02. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ "developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee". 7-28-2006. Retrieved 2007-02-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Tim O'Reilly (2006-12-10). "Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again". Retrieved 2007-01-20.
  4. ^ Jürgen Schiller García (2006-09-21). "Web 2.0 Buzz Time bar". Retrieved 2006-10-29. {{cite web}}: External link in |author= (help)
  5. ^ Tim O'Reilly (2006-07-17). "Levels of the Game: The Hierarchy of Web 2.0 Applications". O'Reilly radar. Retrieved 2006-08-08.
  6. ^ a b c d e Tim O'Reilly (2005-09-30). "What Is Web 2.0". O'Reilly Network. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
  7. ^ a b Dion Hinchcliffe (2006-04-02). "The State of Web 2.0". Web Services Journal. Retrieved 2006-08-06.
  8. ^ Marwell and Ames, 1979 http://www.jstor.org/view/00029602/dm992648/99p05365/0
  9. ^ "Free riding is taking place at web 2.0": http://www.trendsspotting.com/blog/?p=1
  10. ^ Bart Decrem (2006-06-13). "Introducing Flock Beta 1". Flock official blog. Retrieved 2007-01-13.
  11. ^ Tim O'Reilly (2002-06-18). "Amazon Web Services API". O'Reilly Network. Retrieved 2006-05-27.
  12. ^ "Bubble 2.0". The Economist. 2005-12-22. Retrieved 2006-12-20.
  13. ^ Josh Kopelman (2006-05-11). "53,651". Redeye VC. Retrieved 2006-12-21.
  14. ^ USPTO serial number 78322306
  15. ^ "O'Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on 'Web 2.0'". Slashdot. 2006-05-26. Retrieved 2006-05-27.
  16. ^ Nathan Torkington (2006-05-26). "O'Reilly's coverage of Web 2.0 as a service mark". O'Reilly Radar. Retrieved 2006-06-01.

External links

Supportive

Critical

Neutral

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_2.0&oldid=116631003"