Published on

A bit of focus on web 2.0 technology.

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Web 2.0 has numerous definitions. Basically, the term encapsulates the idea of the proliferation of interconnectivity and interactivity of web-delivered content. Tim O’regards Web 2.0 as business embracing the web as a platform and using its strengths, for example global audiences. O'Reilly considers that Eric Schmidt's abridged slogan, don't fight the Internet , encompasses the essence of Web 2.0 — building applications and services around the unique features of the Internet, as opposed to expecting the Internet to suit as a platform (effectively "fighting the Internet"). In the opening talk of a first web 2.0 Conference, O'Reilly and John Batelle summarized what they saw as the themes of Web 2.0. They argued that the web had become a platform, with software above the level of a single device, leveraging the power of the “Long Tail”, and with data as a driving force. According to O'Reilly and Battelle, an architecture of participation where users can contribute website content creates network effects. Web 2.0 technologies tend to foster innovation in the assembly of systems and sites composed by pulling together features from distributed, independent developers. (This could be seen as a kind of "open source" or possible "Agile" development process, consistent with an end to the traditional software adoption cycle, typified by the so-called “perpetual beta".)
  • Web2.0-IFF

    2. 2. Flickr!Allows users to upload and share photos….
    3. 3. Its Idea ! <ul><li>Web 2.0 technology encourages light weight business models enabled by syndication of content and of service and by ease of picking-up by early adopteras </li></ul><ul><li>O'Reilly provided examples of companies or products that embody these principles in his description of his four levels in the hierarchy of Web 2.0 sites: </li></ul><ul><li>Level-3 applications, the most &quot;Web 2.0&quot;-oriented, exist only on the Internet, deriving their effectiveness from the inter-human connections and from the network effects that Web 2.0 makes possible, and growing in effectiveness in proportion as people make more use of them. </li></ul><ul><li>Level-2 applications can operate offline but gain advantages from going online. O'Reilly cited Flickr, which benefits from its shared photo-database and from its community-generated tag database. </li></ul><ul><li>Level-1 applications operate offline but gain features online. O'Reilly pointed to Writely and iTunes( because of its music-store portion). </li></ul><ul><li>Level-0 applications work as well offline as online. O'Reilly gave the examples of MapQuest, Yahoo! Local, and Google Maps. </li></ul><ul><li>Non-web applications like email, instant-messaging clients,and the telephone fall outside the above hierarchy. </li></ul>
    4. 4. The Web as platform.
    5. 5. Most Strinking Feature & Technologies Overview… <ul><li>Flickr, Web 2.0 web site that allows users to upload and share photos </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. They can build on the interactive facilities of &quot;Web 1.0&quot; to provide &quot;Network as platform&quot; computing, allowing users to run software-applications entirely through a browser. Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data. These sites may have an &quot;Architecture of participation&quot; that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it. This stands in contrast to very old traditional websites, the sort which limited visitors to viewing and whose content only the site's owner could modify. Web 2.0 sites often feature a rich, user-friendly interface based onWeb 2.0 websites typically include some of the following features/techniques: </li></ul><ul><li>Cascading Style Sheets to aid in the separation of presentation and content </li></ul><ul><li>Folksonomies (collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing, and social tagging) </li></ul><ul><li>Microformats extending pages with additional semantics </li></ul><ul><li>REST and/or XML- and/or JSON-based APIs </li></ul><ul><li>Rich Internet application techniques, often Ajax and/or Flex/Flash-based </li></ul><ul><li>Semantically valid XHTML and HTML markup </li></ul><ul><li>Syndication, aggregation and notification of data in RSS or Atom feeds mashups, merging content from different sources, client- and server-side </li></ul><ul><li>Weblog-publishing tools wiki or forum software, etc., to support user-generated content </li></ul><ul><li>Social networking, the linking of user-generated content to users, and users to other users </li></ul><ul><li>Ajax, OpenLaszlo, Flex or similar rich media. </li></ul>
    6. 6. APPLICATIONS <ul><li>Higher Education </li></ul><ul><li>Universities are using web 2.0 in order to reach out and engage with generation Y and other prospective students according to recent reports. [ Examples of this are: social networking websites – YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter and Flickr; upgrading institutions’ websites in gen Y-friendly ways – stand-alone micro-websites with minimal navigation; placing current students in cyberspace or student blogs; and blogging which enables prospective students to log on and ask questions. Catering to different audiences was seen as important: school leavers can watch a promotional clip on YouTube focusing on the university experience; academic staff conduct virtual classrooms with remote students; sites like Facebook are popular with alumni keen to stay in touch with each other; and postgraduates tend to be more pragmatic - they are more interested in classroom discussion rather than video clips. Whilst universities were seen to be taking to web 2.0 technologies as a marketing tool, others were more cautious. The use of this technology is more about the communications end of marketing rather than selling so that overt marketing can be counterproductive. It has been argued that for a uenough, that presence had to be perceived as ‘cool, credible and useful’. Another challenge for users of this technology as a way of “selling” universities is how to measure its value. The main challenge is to work out how to elevate the effectiveness of this technology. The aspects that can be measured, such as, login-in users and other qualitative measures are easily obtained. “What you need is qualitative tools that tell you about relationships measurement”. </li></ul>
    7. 7. Contd…. <ul><li>Web-based applications and desktops </li></ul><ul><li>Ajax has prompted the development of websites that mimic desktop 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. In 2006 Google, Inc. acquired one of the best-known sites of this broad class, Writely. </li></ul><ul><li>Several browser-based &quot;operating systems&quot; have emerged, including EyeOSand YouOS. Although coined as such, many of these services function less like a traditional operating system and more as an application platform. They mimic the user experience of desktop operating-systems, offering features and applications similar to a PC environment, as well as the added ability of being able to run within any modern browser. </li></ul><ul><li>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 USD45 million. </li></ul>
    8. 8. Contd… <ul><li>Internet Applications </li></ul><ul><li>Rich-Internet application techniques such as AJAX, Adobe Flash, Flex, Java, Silverlight and Curl have evolved that have the potential to improve the user-experience in browser-based applications. The 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. </li></ul><ul><li>Server-side software </li></ul><ul><li>Functionally, Web 2.0 applications build on the existing Web server architecture, but rely much more heavily 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. </li></ul><ul><li>Client-side software </li></ul><ul><li>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/ Ajax, or through Flash, Curl Applets or Java Applets. These methods all make use of the clientcomputer to reduce server workloads and to increase the responsiveness of the application. </li></ul>
    9. 9. Contd… <ul><li>XML & RSS </li></ul><ul><li>Advocates of &quot;Web 2.0&quot; may regard syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 feature, involving as it does standardized protocols, which permit end-users to make use of a site's data in another context (such as another website, a browser plugin, or a separate desktop application). Protocols which permit syndication include RSS (Really Simple Syndication — also known as &quot;web syndication&quot;), RDF (as in RSS 1.1), and Atom, all of them XML-based formats. Observers have started to refer to these technologies as &quot;Web feed&quot; as the usability of Web 2.0 evolves and the more user-friendly Feeds icon supplants the RSS icon. </li></ul><ul><li>Specialized protocols </li></ul><ul><li>Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for socialnetworking) extend the functionality of sites or permit end-users to interact without centralized websites. </li></ul>
    10. 10. Contd… <ul><li>Web APIs </li></ul><ul><li>Machine-based interaction, a common feature of Web 2.0 sites, uses two main approaches to Web APIs, which allow web-based access to data and functions: REST and SOAP. </li></ul><ul><li>REST (Representational State Transfer) Web ]] alone to interact, with XML (eXtensible Markup Language) or JSON payloads; SOAP involves POSTing more elaborate XML messages and requests to a server that may contain quite complex, but pre-defined, instructions for the server to follow. </li></ul><ul><li>Often servers use proprietary APIs, but standard APIs (for example, for posting to a blog or notifying a blog update) have also come into wide use. Most communications through APIs involve XML or JSON payloads. </li></ul><ul><li>See also Web Services Description Language (WSDL) (the standard way of publishing a SOAP API) and this list of Web Service specifications </li></ul>
    11. 11. Some other interesting points: <ul><li>A Platform Beats an Application Every Time </li></ul><ul><li>In each of its past confrontations with rivals, Microsoft has successfully played the platform card, trumping even the most dominant applications. Windows allowed Microsoft to displace Lotus 1-2-3 with Excel, WordPerfect with Word, and Netscape Navigator with Internet Explorer. </li></ul><ul><li>This time, though, the clash isn't between a platform and an application, but between two platforms, each with a radically different business model: On the one side, a single software provider, whose massive installed base and tightly integrated operating system and APIs give control over the programming paradigm; on the other, a system without an owner, tied together by a set of protocols, open standards and agreements for cooperation. </li></ul><ul><li>Windows represents the pinnacle of proprietary control via software APIs. Netscape tried to wrest control from Microsoft using the same techniques that Microsoft itself had used against other rivals, and failed. But Apache, which held to the open standards of the web, has prospered. The battle is no longer unequal, a platform versus a single application, but platform versus platform, with the question being which platform, and more profoundly, which architecture, and which business model, is better suited to the opportunity ahead. </li></ul><ul><li>Windows was a brilliant solution to the problems of the early PC era. It leveled the playing field for application developers, solving a host of problems that had previously bedeviled the industry. But a single monolithic approach, controlled by a single vendor, is no longer a solution, it's a problem. Communications-oriented systems, as the internet-as-platform most certainly is, require interoperability. Unless a vendor can control both ends of every interaction, the possibilities of user lock-in via software APIs are limited. </li></ul><ul><li>Any Web 2.0 vendor that seeks to lock in its application gains by controlling the platform will, by definition, no longer be playing to the strengths of the platform. </li></ul><ul><li>This is not to say that there are not opportunities for lock-in and competitive advantage, but we believe they are not to be found via control over software APIs and protocols. There is a new game afoot. The companies that succeed in the Web 2.0 era will be those that understand the rules of that game, rather than trying to go back to the rules of the PC software era. </li></ul>
    12. 12. Contd.. <ul><li>The Architecture of Participation </li></ul><ul><li>Some systems are designed to encourage participation. In his paper, The Cornucopia of the Commons, Dan Bricklin noted that there are three ways to build a large database. The first, demonstrated by Yahoo!, is to pay people to do it. The second, inspired by lessons from the open source community, is to get volunteers to perform the same task. The Open Directory Project, an open source Yahoo competitor, is the result. But Napster demonstrated a third way. Because Napster set its defaults to automatically serve any music that was downloaded, every user automatically helped to build the value of the shared database. This same approach has been followed by all other P2P file sharing services. </li></ul><ul><li>One of the key lessons of the Web 2.0 era is this: Users add value . But only a small percentage of users will go to the trouble of adding value to your application via explicit means. Therefore, Web 2.0 companies set inclusive defaults for aggregating user data and building value as a side-effect of ordinary use of the application . As noted above, they build systems that get better the more people use them. </li></ul><ul><li>Mitch Kapor once noted that &quot;architecture is politics.&quot; Participation is intrinsic to Napster, part of its fundamental architecture. </li></ul><ul><li>This architectural insight may also be more central to the success of open source software than the more frequently cited appeal to volunteerism. The architecture of the internet, and the World Wide Web, as well as of open source software projects like Linux, Apache, and Perl, is such that users pursuing their own &quot;selfish&quot; interests build collective value as an automatic byproduct. Each of these projects has a small core, well-defined extension mechanisms, and an approach that lets any well-behaved component be added by anyone, growing the outer layers of what Larry Wall, the creator of Perl, refers to as &quot;the onion.&quot; In other words, these technologies demonstrate network effects, simply through the way that they have been designed. </li></ul><ul><li>These projects can be seen to have a natural architecture of participation. But as Amazon demonstrates, by consistent effort (as well as economic incentives such as the Associates program), it is possible to overlay such an architecture on a system that would not normally seem to possess it. </li></ul>
    13. 13. Contd… <ul><li>Web 2.0 Design Patterns </li></ul><ul><li>The Long Tail Small sites make up the bulk of the internet's content; narrow niches make up the bulk of internet's the possible applications. Therefore: Leverage customer-self service and algorithmic data management to reach out to the entire web, to the edges and not just the center, to the long tail and not just the head. </li></ul><ul><li>Data is the Next Intel Inside Applications are increasingly data-driven. Therefore : For competitive advantage, seek to own a unique, hard-to-recreate source of data. </li></ul><ul><li>Users Add Value The key to competitive advantage in internet applications is the extent to which users add their own data to that which you provide. </li></ul><ul><li>Network Effects by Default Only a small percentage of users will go to the trouble of adding value to your application. </li></ul><ul><li>Some Rights Reserved. Intellectual property protection limits re-use and prevents experimentation. Design for &quot;hackability&quot; and &quot;remixability.&quot; </li></ul><ul><li>The Perpetual Beta When devices and programs are connected to the internet, applications are no longer software artifacts, they are ongoing services. </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperate, Don't Control Web 2.0 applications are built of a network of cooperating data services. </li></ul><ul><li>Software Above the Level of a Single Device The PC is no longer the only access device for internet applications, and applications that are limited to a single device are less valuable than those that are connected. </li></ul>
    14. 14. CONCLUSION <ul><li>The argument exists that &quot;Web 2.0&quot; does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web at all, but merely continues to use so-called &quot;Web 1.0&quot; technologies and concepts. Techniques such as AJAX do not replace underlying protocols like HTTP, but add an additional layer of abstraction on top of them. Many of the ideas of Web 2.0 had already been featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term &quot;Web 2.0&quot; 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. Previous developments also came from research in computer-supported collaborative learning and computer-supported cooperative work and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino. </li></ul><ul><li>A few critics cite the language used to describe the hype cycle of Web 2.0 as an example of Techno-utopianist rhetoric. [ According to these critics, Web 2.0 is not the first example of communication creating a false, hyper-inflated sense of the value of technology and its impact on culture. The dot com boom and subsequent bust in 2000 was a culmination of rhetoric of the technological sublime in terms that would later make their way into Web 2.0 jargon. Communication as culture: essays on media and society (1989) and the technologies worth as represented in the stock market. Indeed, several years before the dot com stock market crash the then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan equated the run up of stock values as irrational exuberance. </li></ul>
    15. 15. THANKYOU <ul><li>Nidhi Murarka </li></ul><ul><li>5 th Sem, </li></ul><ul><li>Comp.Science </li></ul><ul><li>KIIT University. </li></ul>