abstract  web2.0
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

abstract web2.0

on

  • 137 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
137
Views on SlideShare
137
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

abstract  web2.0 abstract web2.0 Document Transcript

  • Mohd Shahid Khan Abhishek Shahid.ieee@gmail.com abhishek6@gmail.com Vignan bharathi institute of technology, Vidya jyothi institute of technology Hyderabad. Hyderabad Riithu A Jain Abstract New types of social Internet applications are becoming increasingly popular within higher education environments. Although developed primarily for entertainment and social communication within the general population, applications such as blogs, social video sites, and virtual worlds are being adopted by higher education institutions. So web 2.0 provides a better platform for us to do thinks in different ways .This paper is a step to discuss some of the most important features of web 2.0. This paper will give focus on the aspects of web 2.0, how it could be utilized by the upcoming development scenario. These newer applications differ from standard Web sites in that they involve the users in creating and distributing information, hence effectively changing how the Web is used for knowledge generation and dispersion. Although Web 2.0 applications offer exciting new ways to teach, they should not be the core of instructional planning, but rather selected only after learning objectives and instructional strategies have been identified. This paper provides an answer to many questions rised on the topic what Web 2.0 is?.the potential of web 2.0.It is a challenging job really define and built a relationship between web . Introduction The term Web 2.0 refers to an evolving number of Web applications that are both open and social in nature. Although there is controversy as to what this means, the general concept is a new set of online applications embracing openness among users, openness among other applications, social connections, and collective intelligence. While Web 2.0 as a term indicates a second generation of Web tools, most experts would say that it is more an evolving emergence of familiar and unfamiliar technologies rather than an entirely new construct.[2] The term Web 2.0 reflects a paradigm shift from Web sites as providers of information, to social co-construction of information by a community of users Also known as the Participatory Web, Web 2.0 applications such as blogs, Faccbook and YouTube are being adopted at high rates among users of all ages who seek to capitalize on those social and interactive features Many of these applications hold the promise of value to teaching and learning in higher education. Similar to the excitement generated by the invention of the World Wide Web, this second generation of the Web is garnering new interest for potential changes in how people communicate and share knowledge. Due to ease of use and open availability, and unlike previous Internet applications, many Web 2.0 applications have a lower barrier to entry into the education
  • environment.[2] Most of the applications are available at no charge to the user, are readily accessible via the Internet, and do not require extensive technology skills Differences Between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 According to Cormode and Krishnamurthy (2008), there are big differences in web 1.0 and web 2.0 in terms of use and activity. Web 1.0 is less interactive with a major focus on the retrieval of knowledge. Web 2.0 allows the user to participate in the acquisition of knowledge. While 1.0 focuses on the individual, 2.0 focuses on communities. Users can interact and gain knowledge from one another through blogging, product sharing, or social media sites in 2.0, while 1.0 was more search engine focused (O’Reilly, 2005). Cormode and Krishnamurthy (2008) argue that labeling a site as 1.0 or 2.0 can be a challenge. They suggest some keys points to consider when determining the status of a site. The term 2.0 wasn’t coined until 2004, so sites created before fall under 1.0 (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). It is important to point out that many sites have upped their user compatibility and adopted 2.0 strategies to keep up with user demands. Some of the important features that separate 2.0 from 1.0 include: 1. Internet users as the major focus in the system. Internet users have prominent profile pages that include personal information and interactivity between users. 2. The ability of users to form connections between themselves. Users are linked to other users who are “friends” or members in social “groups” of various kinds. 3. The ability to post content in many ways. Users have the ability to post photos, videos, blogs, comments and to rate the content of other users. They can also tag information of their own or comment on others content. 4. The ability to mix media types within content. . In 2.0, it is possible to “allow third-party enhancements and “mash-ups”, and embedding of various rich content types (e.g. Flash videos), and communication with other users through internal email or IM systems” (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). Web 2.0 is interested in sharing knowledge and in personal involvement in the web, while 1.0 seems more interested in simply publishing information for users to access. Sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Blogger have become the norm. Users interact with one another … often dozens of times a day. 2.0 has moved away from the personal websites that were so popular in 1.0 (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 and Social Networking - what do those two technologies have in common? When looking at them independently, and from a purely technical point of view, you might think they don't have a lot in common. However, merge the concepts of two of the hottest technical advances to come around in a while and you have the power to change the world. Not all at once, as change happens over time, but they do provide a framework and the opportunities for major change, which is a first step and much of what we discuss here. My hope is that you can use this excerpt as a reference that provides some concrete guidelines for creating and then implementing a strategy for Web 2.0 and Social Networking integration within your group or organization. Much of the focus in the Web 2.0 and Social Networking space has been toward customer interaction; that is, how to draw in or collaborate better with customers through blogs, forums, or Facebook and MySpace pages; how to increase brand or product awareness or drive sales with viral marketing campaigns; or how to increase customer satisfaction using AJAX so that pages are updated almost automatically. We'll look at
  • these ideas and more. However, we also turn our focus inward to the enterprise to see how we can use new strategies and technologies to increase productivity, collaboration, knowledge management, and creativity of our employees and partners. By now, many people understand the use of the term Web 2.0, but it still requires some explanation in our context. For our purposes, we might define Web 2.0 as a set of enabling technologies that enable us to reach and provide services to end users in exciting new ways. The reality is that much of the hype around Web 2.0 already existed on the Web well before the term became popular with the media and within the industry, but the concept is helping to drive new innovation in the use of this technology toward better user interaction. At the core of these new technologies is the use of Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX) to provide a richer user experience to end users. The term Web 2.0 was coined by Tim O'Reilly, founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media, Inc., and the term became better known across the industry after the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004. The idea of Web 2.0 provide for and foster a collective community. Users can create, edit, rate, and tag content at will, which provides other users with new information and guides the relevance of what is important to the overall community. In addition to providing the underlying ability for communities to build momentum, obtain critical mass, and contribute to ongoing ). definitely has some technical aspects, with the implementation and innovation of new technologies and standards within the web platform. However, much of the focus of Web 2.0 is on new business models. Whereas the focus of Web 1.0 was on delivering products, Web 2.0 had created a paradigm shift to delivering services that can be used and combined with other services in new ways. Another key aspect is the growth of interactivity with end users in new ways, enabling users to drive what is important or of the most value. Figure 1 illustrates the concept of Web 1.0, where there is a strict producer/consumer approach to delivering web content. The webmaster or content creators build and maintain the website for consumption by end users. The relationship is strictly unidirectional in this model, fixed and targeted based on assumptions made by the webmaster and content team. In contrast to this approach, in the Web 2.0 model, users actively participate and contribute to a website. This bidirectional approach enables users to interact with the site and each other in ways that. collaboration, services can be provided in the form of application programming interfaces (APIs), Representational State Transfer (REST) services, or Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds, which enable end users to merge and view data in ways that haven't even been imagined (see Figure 2
  • Figure 2: Web 2.0 paradigm CIO, CTO Resources & Developer Web 2.0 is not only about providing data in new ways, it is also about improving the user interface and enabling end users to view data quicker and in more dynamic ways through richer user interfaces using AJAX and other technologies. Rich User Experience Within the Browser Although not always the case, the goal is to take advantage of the browser as the universal client and provide a richer interactive experience to the end user. Two core technologies that help provide this experience are AJAX and REST. There are lots of other frameworks technologies in this category that can also provide a browser-based rich user experience, such as Adobe Flex and Macromedia Flash. In addition, there are nonbrowser-based approaches, such as using an refreshes that are so common with the Web. Take, for example, a simple stock ticker or some fluid piece of data. With the pre-Web 2.0 approach, the entire screen needs to be refreshed to update a potentially small piece of data. With AJAX and Web 2.0, that Eclipse framework-based approach such as Lotus Expeditor. AJAX has again brought JavaScript into vogue by providing a new approach to the language. Now you can leverage JavaScript using eXtensible Markup Language (XML), Representational State Transfer (REST), JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), and other technologies. The term AJAX is relatively new; although if you work with web technologies, you have undoubtedly heard of the term, but the underlying technologies have been around almost as long as the Web itself. The key in AJAX is the term asynchronous, which enables the browser to provide services and features in simple but exciting ways. AJAX provides a new paradigm for interacting with the browser. Essentially, the browser can be updated in an asynchronous manner, which means that there need be no more full-page small piece of data can be retrieved behind the scenes at regular intervals and updated while users focus elsewhere on the page (see Figure 3).
  • Figure 3: AJAX interaction model The purpose of all of this is to provide much more dynamic web pages that not only respond quicker to user action, but that actually assist the user in working with the web page. Simple AJAX patterns include the following: Type Assist: This enables a user to type into a text box while the system tries to figure out what word or phrase the user is looking for. As the user types, the text box continues to change with different values that can assist the user in getting the right value. Form Assist: Another scenario is the concept of updating a list of options based on an earlier choice. Consider, for example, a user trying to fill out a form on the screen. Choosing one option from a list or drop-down box might trigger different options to appear, change, or prefill with additional values based on that choice. Page Fragment Updates: Again, as in the stock ticker example, data can be retrieved behind the scenes and update small fragments of a page without requiring a full refresh of the page. Sliding Palettes: This pattern is where a window appears or slides out on top of the page. This allows the user to choose from a picklist or set of displayed options. More advanced examples of using AJAX are more obvious, where large sections of the page are updated based on options chosen. One example is a customer service type of application where the user can look up customer and order detail information in a single interface. A detailed example of this is in Chapter 3, "Ajax, Portlets, and Patterns." It has been said that the use of AJAX is nontrivial, which means that although it is simple to add basic examples to your web pages, more advanced works require advanced skills and additional design work to obtain good results. The results of this effort can be impressive as web pages become truly interactive for the end users. AJAX and the Dojo Toolkit The Dojo Toolkit is a JavaScript-based collection of libraries (hence the name toolkit) that enable you to build AJAX capabilities into your web pages. The Dojo Toolkit is more than just AJAX, but that is our primary focus here. In reality, Dojo is a DHTML toolkit. Because Dojo is open source, it is free to use in your projects, and many large organizations contribute to Dojo itself. JavaScript, DHTML, and AJAX are complicated. Dojo encapsulates complex JavaScript capability with predefined components and APIs. Of course, Dojo has a learning curve; however, the gains obtained by focusing at a higher level of abstraction can be enormous. In addition, while some optimization can be obtained, using Dojo libraries implies heavier pages in the form of JavaScript libraries that need to be
  • transmitted to the user's browser to enable all the cool functionality that you will build. It is worth the tradeoff, but I don't want you to think that you get something for free. Several AJAX libraries are available on the market today. Many of them are open source. IBM has opted to support Dojo by contributing to the community and building Dojo into WebSphere Portal 6.1. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has launched some Web 2.0 technologies and has signed agreements to create National Archives sites on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Flickr. NARA is using these tools and sites to create new ways of communicating with the public and we look forward to your feedback. Below is a comprehensive list of NARA's social media initiatives and those of our affiliate organizations. Please visit us often to see NARA's expanding Web 2.0 and social media projects. 7. Rich User Experiences "Ajax isn't a technology. It's really several technologies, each flourishing in its own right, coming together in powerful new ways. Ajax incorporates: standards-based presentation using XHTML and CSS; dynamic display and interaction using the Document Object Model; data interchange and manipulation using XML and XSLT; asynchronous data retrieval using XMLHttpRequest; and JavaScript binding 1. everything together." As early as Pei Wei's Viola browser in 1992, the web was being used to deliver "applets" and other kinds of active content within the web browser. Java's introduction in 1995 was framed around the delivery of such applets. JavaScript and then DHTML were introduced as lightweight ways to provide client side programmability and richer user experiences. Several years ago, Macromedia coined the term "Rich Internet Applications" (which has also been picked up by open source Flash competitor Laszlo Systems) to highlight the capabilities of Flash to deliver not just multimedia content but also GUIstyle application experiences. However, the potential of the web to deliver full scale applications didn't hit the mainstream till Google introduced Gmail, quickly followed by Google Maps, web based applications with rich user interfaces and PC-equivalent interactivity. The collection of technologies used by Google was christened AJAX, in a seminal essay by Jesse James Garrett of web design firm Adaptive Path. He wrote: AJAX is also a key component of Web 2.0 applications such as Flickr, now part of Yahoo!, 37signals' applications basecamp and backpack, as well as other Google applications such as Gmail and Orkut. We're entering an unprecedented period of user interface innovation, as web developers are finally able to build web applications as rich as local PC-based applications. Interestingly, many of the capabilities now being explored have been around for many years. In the late '90s, both Microsoft and Netscape had a vision of the kind of capabilities that are now finally being realized, but their battle over the standards to be used made cross-browser applications difficult. It was only when Microsoft definitively won the browser wars, and there was a single de-facto browser standard to write to, that this kind of application became possible. And while Firefox has reintroduced competition to the browser market, at least so far we haven't seen the destructive competition over web standards that held back progress in the '90s.
  • We expect to see many new web applications over the next few years, both truly novel applications, and rich web reimplementations of PC applications. Every platform change to date has also created opportunities for a leadership change in the dominant applications of the previous platform. Gmail has already provided some interesting innovations in email, combining the strengths of the web (accessible from anywhere, deep database competencies, searchability) with user interfaces that approach PC interfaces in usability. Meanwhile, other mail clients on the PC platform are nibbling away at the problem from the other end, adding IM and presence capabilities. How far are we from an integrated communications client combining the best of email, IM, and the cell phone, using VoIP to add voice capabilities to the rich capabilities of web applications? The race is on. It's easy to see how Web 2.0 will also remake the address book. A Web 2.0style address book would treat the local address book on the PC or phone merely as a cache of the contacts you've explicitly asked the system to remember. Meanwhile, a web-based synchronization agent, Gmail-style, would remember every message sent or received, every email address and every phone number used, and build social networking heuristics to decide which ones to offer up as alternatives when an answer wasn't found in the local cache. Lacking an answer there, the system would query the broader social network. A Web 2.0 word processor would support wiki-style collaborative editing, not just standalone documents. But it would also support the rich formatting we've come to expect in PC-based word processors.Writely is a good example of such an application, although it hasn't yet gained wide traction. Nor will the Web 2.0 revolution be limited to PC applications. Salesforce.com demonstrates how the web can be used to deliver software as a service, in enterprise scale applications such as CRM. The competitive opportunity for new entrants is to fully embrace the potential of Web 2.0. Companies that succeed will create applications that learn from their users, using an architecture of participation to build a commanding advantage not just in the software interface, but in the richness of the shared data. Core Competencies Companies of Web 2.0 In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core competencies of Web 2.0 companies: Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability Control over unique, hard-torecreate data sources that get richer as more people use them Trusting users as co-developers Harnessing collective intelligence Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service Software above the level of a single device Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models The next time a company claims that it's "Web 2.0," test their features against the list above. The more points they score, the more they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one area may be more telling than some small steps in all sevens
  • Web 2.0 Applications Blogs are easily implemented, open to all (with controls), and can foster a collaborative environment. While this is a simplified description of the blogging process, it captures the essence of the technology. This collaborative environment offers some advantages over in-class discussions. First, it gives everyone a chance to "speak." Second, it can be a less threatening environment for students who are uncomfortable speaking in class. Third, blogs can be used to shift discussion to non-class hours, freeing time in class for discussion of additional topics. Although some think that the blog creation process is difficult, the process is straightforward and can be accomplished in less than 5 minutes by someone with only moderate technical ability. Two of the most popular free blogging sites are Blogger.com [Link type: uri, href: Blogger.com] and Wordpress.com. A sample list of blogs addressing a variety of pharmacy practice and health care-related issues is presented in Table 1. These blogs provide readers with a simple way to find current information related to health care and the pharmacy profession. They can be used as teaching tools, as well as a means for educators to stay informed about relevant issues. Numerous "opinion" blogs maintained by practitioners also exist, providing perspectives into the day-to-day professional lives of pharmacists. Some of these blogs, however, convey personal attitudes and contain language that many in the profession might feel are [8] transgressions of e-professionalism. A Web search on the phrase "pharmacy blog" will return a list of links to some of the more personal blogs.Several characteristics of wikis lead to their potential use as an educational tool. First, wikis are active, evolving, and built by contributors who add content to a specific topic. By adding content, contributors are constructing knowledge through a process of internal reflection, external information gathering, and potential discussion with others. Second, contributors actively seek authoritative resources to support their own statements or arguments. Similar to the expectation that pharmacy students justify their rationale for clinical recommendations, wiki construction can require the inclusion of authoritative resources for postings. Third, as a collaborative medium, wikis allow contributors to evaluate content posted by others. This evaluation process potentially allows students to practice and develop critical-thinking skills. Darwikinism is a term describing the continual, socially-driven editing and refining [10] process that a wiki page undergoes. Wiki postings are believed to evolve so that only the higher quality postings remain. At least 1 study has shown that Wikipedia drug information has markedly improved over time,contains a small sample of wikis used for different purposes in higher education. Wikipedia also maintains a partial list of university and school projects that educators can reference for ideas.[14] In addition, the University of Delaware has created an exploratory report on the value of wikis in higher education Conclusion Web-based language learning has been popular for many years due to the access it provides to authentic targetlanguage materials. Web 2.0 applications augment this, providing many more opportunities for input, social interaction and collaboration with native speakers of the target language. Language is all about communication, and there is nothing more motivating than being able to use one's newly acquired language skills in an authentic environment. In addition, the user-friendliness of Web 2.0 applications enables language teachers to integrate these tools very easily into the class setting. The potential of these tools is clear, but a greater body of research is required to inform the creation of guidelines to ensure these tools are integrated appropriately. As Web 2.0 applications become mainstream, developments in this exciting field are likely to continue apace. Reference
  • "Web 2.0". Retrieved 2006-08-02. "I first heard the phrase 'Web 2.0' in the name of the Web 2.0 conference in 2004." ^ a b c d Tim O'Reilly (2005-09-30). "What Is Web 2.0". O'Reilly Network. Retrieved 200608-06. ^ http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar? q=cache:v9BjMTEh0rQJ:scholar.google.com/+ web+2.0+definition&hl=en&as_sdt=0,33&as_ vis=1 ^ a b c "DeveloperWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee". 2006-07-28. Retrieved 2012-0805. ^ "Berners-Lee on the read/write web". BBC News. 2005-08-09. Retrieved 2012-08-05. ^ Richardson, Will (2009). Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms (2nd ed.). California: Corwin Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-4129-5972-8. ^ DiNucci, Darcy (1999). "Fragmented Future" (pdf). Print 53 (4): 32. ^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. RSS: INJAN (It's not just about news). Blog. Blog Data Space. August 21 OpenLinkSW.com ^ Idehen, Kingsley. 2003. Jeff Bezos Comments about Web Services. Blog. Blog Data Space. September 25. OpenLinkSW.com ^ a b Knorr, Eric. 2003. The year of Web services. CIO, December 15. ^ a b "John Robb's Weblog". Jrobb.mindplex.org. Retrieved 2011-02-06. ^ a b O'Reilly, Tim, and John Battelle. 2004. Opening Welcome: State of the Internet Industry. In San Francisco, California, October 5. ^ O’Reilly, T., 2005. ^ Grossman, Lev. 2006. Person of the Year: You. December 25. Time.com ^ Dion Hinchcliffe (2006-04-02). "The State of Web 2.0". Web Services. Retrieved 2006-0806. ^ [SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=732483 Wireless Communications and Computing at a Crossroads: New Paradigms and Their Impact on Theories Governing the Public's Right to Spectrum Access], Patrick S. Ryan, Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law, Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 239, 2005. ^ Bart Decrem (2006-06-13). "Introducing Flock Beta 1". Flock official blog. Retrieved 2007-01-13. ^ Gerald Marwell and Ruth E. Ames: "Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. I. Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the Free-Rider Problem". The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (May, 1979), pp. 1335–1360 ^ Best, D., 2006. Web 2.0 Next Big Thing or Next Big Internet Bubble? Lecture Web Information Systems. Techni sche Universiteit Eindhoven. ^ Greenmeier, Larry and Gaudin, Sharon. "Amid The Rush To Web 2.0, Some Words Of Warning – Web 2.0 – InformationWeek". www.informationweek.com. Retrieved 200804-04. ^ O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, p. 30 ^ "7 Key features of web 2.0". www.webApprater.com. 2012-09-17. Retrieved 2012-09-17.