انترنت فيديو كونفرنس 12_7_2011


Published on

my file

Published in: Education, Technology, Design
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

انترنت فيديو كونفرنس 12_7_2011

  1. 1. World Wide WebThe World Wide Web (abbreviated as WWW or W3 and commonly known as theWeb), is a system of interlinked hypertext documents accessed via the Internet. Witha web browser, one can view web pages that may contain text, images, videos, andother multimedia and navigate between them via hyperlinks. Using concepts fromearlier hypertext systems"The World-Wide Web was developed to be a pool of humanknowledge, and human culture, which would allow collaborators in remote sites toshare their ideas and all aspects of a common project."[4] 1. a system of globally unique identifiers for resources on the Web and elsewhere, the Universal Document Identifier (UDI), later known as Uniform Resource Locator (URL) and Uniform Resource Identifier (URI); 2. the publishing language HyperText Markup Language (HTML); 3. the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP).[15]The World Wide Web had a number of differences from other hypertext systems thatwere then available. The Web required only unidirectional links rather thanbidirectional ones. This made it possible for someone to link to another resourcewithout action by the owner of that resource. It also significantly reduced thedifficulty of implementing web servers and browsers[edit] FunctionThe terms Internet and World Wide Web are often used in every-day speech withoutmuch distinction. However, the Internet and the World Wide Web are not one and thesame. The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks. Incontrast, the Web is one of the services that runs on the Internet. It is a collection ofinterconnected documents and other resources, linked by hyperlinks and URLs. Inshort, the Web is an application running on the InternetViewing a web page on the World Wide Web normally begins either by typing theURL of the page into a web browser, or by following a hyperlink to that page orresource. The web browser then initiates a series of communication messages, behindthe scenes, in order to fetch and display it. As an example, consider the Wikipediapage for this article with the URLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web .First, the browser resolves the server-name portion of the URL (en.wikipedia.org)into an Internet Protocol address using the global, distributed Internet database knownas the Domain Name System (DNS); this lookup returns an IP address such as208.80.152.2. The browser then requests the resource by sending an HTTP requestacross the Internet to the computer at that particular address. It makes the request to aparticular application port in the underlying Internet Protocol Suite so that thecomputer receiving the request can distinguish an HTTP request from other networkprotocols such as e-mail delivery; the HTTP protocol normally uses port 80. Thecontent of the HTTP request can be as simple as the two lines of textGET /wiki/World_Wide_Web HTTP/1.1 1
  2. 2. Host: en.wikipedia.orgThe computer receiving the HTTP request delivers it to Web server software listeningfor requests on port 80. If the web server can fulfill the request it sends an HTTPresponse back to the browser indicating success, which can be as simple asHTTP/1.0 200 OKContent-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8followed by the content of the requested page. The Hypertext Markup Language for abasic web page looks like<html><head><title>World Wide Web — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</title></head><body><p>The World Wide Web, abbreviated as WWW and commonlyknown ...</p></body></html>The web browser parses the HTML, interpreting the markup (<title>, <b> for bold,and such) that surrounds the words in order to draw that text on the screen.Many web pages consist of more elaborate HTML which references the URLs ofother resources such as images, other embedded media, scripts that affect pagebehavior, and Cascading Style Sheets that affect page layout. A browser that handlescomplex HTML will make additional HTTP requests to the web server for these otherInternet media types. As it receives their content from the web server, the browserprogressively renders the page onto the screen as specified by its HTML and theseadditional resources.[edit] LinkingMost web pages contain hyperlinks to other related pages and perhaps todownloadable files, source documents, definitions and other web resources (thisWikipedia article is full of hyperlinks). In the underlying HTML, a hyperlink lookslike<a href="http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-hypertext/hypertext/WWW/">Early archive of the first Web site</a> 2
  3. 3. Graphic representation of a minute fraction of the WWW, demonstrating hyperlinks[edit] Dynamic updates of web pagesMain article: Ajax (programming)JavaScript is a scripting language that was initially developed in 1995 by BrendanEich, then of Netscape, for use within web pages.[23] The standardized version isECMAScript.[23] To overcome some of the limitations of the page-by-page modeldescribed above, some web applications also use Ajax (asynchronous JavaScript andXML). JavaScript is delivered with the page that can make additional HTTP requeststo the server, either in response to user actions such as mouse-clicks, or based onlapsed time. The servers responses are used to modify the current page rather thancreating a new page with each response. Thus the server only needs to providelimited, incremental information. Since multiple Ajax requests can be handled at thesame time, users can interact with a page even while data is being retrieved. Someweb applications regularly poll the server to ask if new information is available.[24] 3
  4. 4. Web1Web 1.0Web 1.0, or web, refers to the first stage of the World Wide Web linking webpageswith hyperlinks.[edit] HistoryHyperlinks between webpages began with the release of the WWW to the public in1993,[1] and describe the Web before the "bursting of the Dot-com bubble" in 2001.Since 2004, Web 2.0 has been the term used to describe social web, especially thecurrent business models of sites on the World Wide Web.[2]The shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 can be seen as a result of technologicalrefinements, which included such adaptations as "broadband, improved browsers, andAJAX, to the rise of Flash application platforms and the mass development ofwidgetization, such as Flickr and YouTube badges". As well as such adjustments tothe Internet, the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 is a direct result of the change in thebehavior of those who use the World Wide Web[original research?]. Web 1.0 trendsTo take an example from above, Personal web pages were common in Web 1.0, andthese consisted of mainly static pages hosted on free hosting services such asGeocities[original research?]. Nowadays, dynamically generated blogs and social networkingprofiles, such as Myspace and Facebook, are more popular[citation needed], allowing forreaders to comment on posts in a way that was not available during Web 1.0[citationneeded] .At the Technet Summit in November 2006, Reed Hastings, founder and CEO ofNetflix, stated a simple formula for defining the phases of the Web: Web 1.0 was dial-up, 50K average bandwidth, Web 2.0 is an average 1“ megabit of bandwidth and Web 3.0 will be 10 megabits of bandwidth all ” the time, which will be the full video Web, and that will feel like Web 3.0. —Reed Hastings[edit] Web 1.0 design elementsSome design elements of a Web 1.0 site include: • Static pages instead of dynamic user-generated content.[4] 4
  5. 5. • The use of framesets[citation needed].• The use of tables to position and align elements on a page. These were often used in combination with "spacer" GIFs (1x1 pixel transparent images in the GIF format.[citation needed])• Proprietary HTML extensions such as the <blink> and <marquee> tags introduced during the first browser war[citation needed].• Online guestbooks[citation needed].• GIF buttons, typically 88x31 pixels in size promoting web browsers and other products.[5]• HTML forms sent via email. A user would fill in a form, and upon clicking submit their email client would attempt to send an email containing the forms details.[6] 5
  6. 6. Web2The term Web 2.0 is associated with web applications that facilitate participatoryinformation sharing, interoperability, user-centered design,[1] and collaboration on theWorld Wide Web. A Web 2.0 site allows users to interact and collaborate with eachother in a social media dialogue as creators (prosumers) of user-generated content in avirtual community, in contrast to websites where users (consumers) are limited to thepassive viewing of content that was created for them. Examples of Web 2.0 includesocial networking sites, blogs, wikis, video sharing sites, hosted services, webapplications, mashups and folksonomies.The term is closely associated with Tim OReilly because of the OReilly Media Web2.0 conference in late 2004.[2][3] Although the term suggests a new version of theWorld Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specification, butrather to cumulative changes in the ways software developers and end-users use theWeb. Whether Web 2.0 is qualitatively different from prior web technologies hasbeen challenged by World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, who called the terma "piece of jargon",[4] precisely because he intended the Web in his vision as "acollaborative medium, a place where we [could] all meet and read and write". Hecalled it the "Read/Write Web".[5][edit] HistoryThe term "Web 2.0" was coined in January 1999 by Darcy DiNucci, a consultant onelectronic information design (information architecture). In her article, "FragmentedFuture", DiNucci writes:[6][7]The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially staticscreenfuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo mightdevelop. The Web will be understood not as screenfulls of text and graphics but as atransport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appearon your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cellphone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven.Her use of the term deals mainly with Web design, aesthetics, and the interconnectionof everyday objects with the Internet; she argues that the Web is "fragmenting" due tothe widespread use of portable Web-ready devices. Her article is aimed at designers,reminding them to code for an ever-increasing variety of hardware. As such, her useof the term hints at, but does not directly relate to, the current uses of the term.The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2002.[8][9][10][11] These authors focus on theconcepts currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Webbecomes a universal, standards-based integration platform".[10] John Robb wrote:"What is Web 2.0? It is a system that breaks with the old model of centralized Websites and moves the power of the Web/Internet to the desktop."[11] 6
  7. 7. In 2003, the term began its rise in popularity when OReilly Media and MediaLivehosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Battelle and TimOReilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where softwareapplications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The uniqueaspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business foryou".[12] They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form ofideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. OReilly andBattelle contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They associated Web1.0 with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclopædia Britannica Online.For example,Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: theirflagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was touse their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced serverproducts. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in thebrowser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed byMicrosoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobileas an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop,and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed tothe webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers.[13]In short, Netscape focused on creating software, updating it on occasion, anddistributing it to the end users. OReilly contrasted this with Google, a company whichdid not at the time focus on producing software, such as a browser, but insteadfocused on providing a service based on data such as the links Web page authorsmake between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Web searchbased on reputation through its "PageRank" algorithm. Unlike software, whichundergoes scheduled releases, such services are constantly updated, a process called"the perpetual beta". A similar difference can be seen between the EncyclopædiaBritannica Online and Wikipedia: while the Britannica relies upon experts to createarticles and releases them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust inanonymous users to constantly and quickly build content. Wikipedia is not based onexpertise but rather an adaptation of the open source software adage "given enougheyeballs, all bugs are shallow", and it produces and updates articles constantly.OReillys Web 2.0 conferences have been held every year since 2003, attractingentrepreneurs, large companies, and technology reporters.In terms of the lay public, the term Web 2.0 was largely championed by bloggers andby technology journalists, culminating in the 2006 TIME magazine Person of TheYear (You).[14] That is, TIME selected the masses of users who were participating incontent creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites. In thecover story, Lev Grossman explains:Its a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. Its aboutthe cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel peoplesnetwork YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. Its about the many wrestingpower from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not onlychange the world, but also change the way the world changes. 7
  8. 8. Since that time, Web 2.0 has found a place in the lexicon; in 2009 Global LanguageMonitor declared it to be the one-millionth English word.[15][edit] CharacteristicsA list of ways that people can volunteer to improve Mass Effect Wiki, on the mainpage of that site. Mass Effect Wiki is an example of content generated by usersworking collaboratively.Edit box interface through which anyone could edit a Wikipedia article.Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. By increasingwhat was already possible in "Web 1.0", they provide the user with more user-interface, software and storage facilities, all through their browser. This has beencalled "Network as platform" computing.[3] Users can provide the data that is on aWeb 2.0 site and exercise some control over that data.[3][16] These sites may have an"Architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application asthey use it.[2][3]The concept of Web-as-participation-platform captures many of these characteristics.Bart Decrem, a founder and former CEO of Flock, calls Web 2.0 the "participatoryWeb"[17] and regards the Web-as-information-source as Web 1.0.The Web 2.0 offers all users the same freedom to contribute. While this opens thepossibility for rational debate and collaboration, it also opens the possibility for"spamming" and "trolling" by less rational users. The impossibility of excludinggroup members who don’t contribute to the provision of goods from sharing profitsgives rise to the possibility that rational members will prefer to withhold theircontribution of effort and free ride on the contribution of others.[18] This requires whatis sometimes called radical trust by the management of the website. According toBest,[19] the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation,dynamic content, metadata, web standards and scalability. Further characteristics,such as openness, freedom[20] and collective intelligence[21] by way of userparticipation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0.[edit] Technologies 8
  9. 9. The client-side/web browser technologies used in Web 2.0 development areAsynchronous JavaScript and XML (Ajax), Adobe Flash and the Adobe Flexframework, and JavaScript/Ajax frameworks such as Yahoo! UI Library, DojoToolkit, MooTools, and jQuery. Ajax programming uses JavaScript to upload anddownload new data from the web server without undergoing a full page reload.To allow users to continue to interact with the page, communications such as datarequests going to the server are separated from data coming back to the page(asynchronously). Otherwise, the user would have to routinely wait for the data tocome back before they can do anything else on that page, just as a user has to wait fora page to complete the reload. This also increases overall performance of the site, asthe sending of requests can complete quicker independent of blocking and queueingrequired to send data back to the client.The data fetched by an Ajax request is typically formatted in XML or JSON(JavaScript Object Notation) format, two widely used structured data formats. Sinceboth of these formats are natively understood by JavaScript, a programmer can easilyuse them to transmit structured data in their web application. When this data isreceived via Ajax, the JavaScript program then uses the Document Object Model(DOM) to dynamically update the web page based on the new data, allowing for arapid and interactive user experience. In short, using these techniques, Web designerscan make their pages function like desktop applications. For example, Google Docsuses this technique to create a Web based word processor.Adobe Flex is another technology often used in Web 2.0 applications. Compared toJavaScript libraries like jQuery, Flex makes it easier for programmers to populatelarge data grids, charts, and other heavy user interactions.[22] Applicationsprogrammed in Flex, are compiled and displayed as Flash within the browser. As awidely available plugin independent of W3C (World Wide Web Consortium, thegoverning body of web standards and protocols) standards, Flash is capable of doingmany things which were not possible pre-HTML5, the language used to construct webpages. Of Flashs many capabilities, the most commonly used in Web 2.0 is its abilityto play audio and video files. This has allowed for the creation of Web 2.0 sites wherevideo media is seamlessly integrated with standard HTML.In addition to Flash and Ajax, JavaScript/Ajax frameworks have recently become avery popular means of creating Web 2.0 sites. At their core, these frameworks do notuse technology any different from JavaScript, Ajax, and the DOM. What frameworksdo is smooth over inconsistencies between web browsers and extend the functionalityavailable to developers. Many of them also come with customizable, prefabricatedwidgets that accomplish such common tasks as picking a date from a calendar,displaying a data chart, or making a tabbed panel.On the server side, Web 2.0 uses many of the same technologies as Web 1.0. Newlanguages such as PHP, Ruby, Perl, Python, JSP and ASP are used by developers todynamically output data using information from files and databases. What has begunto change in Web 2.0 is the way this data is formatted. In the early days of theInternet, there was little need for different websites to communicate with each otherand share data. In the new "participatory web", however, sharing data between siteshas become an essential capability. To share its data with other sites, a website must 9
  10. 10. be able to generate output in machine-readable formats such as XML (Atom, RSS,etc) and JSON. When a sites data is available in one of these formats, another websitecan use it to integrate a portion of that sites functionality into itself, linking the twotogether. When this design pattern is implemented, it ultimately leads to data that isboth easier to find and more thoroughly categorized, a hallmark of the philosophybehind the Web 2.0 movement.In brief, Ajax is a key technology used to build Web 2.0 because it provides rich userexperience and works with any browser whether it is Firefox, Chrome, InternetExplorer or another popular browser. Then, a language with very good web servicessupport should be used to build Web 2.0 applications. In addition, the language usedshould be iterative meaning that it will help easy and fast the addition and deploymentof features.[edit] ConceptsWeb 2.0 can be described in 3 parts which are as follows: • Rich Internet application (RIA)—It defines the experience brought from desktop to browser whether it is from a graphical point of view or usability point of view. Some buzzwords related to RIA are Ajax and Flash. • Service-oriented architecture (SOA)—It is a key piece in Web 2.0 which defines how Web 2.0 applications expose its functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate the functionality providing a set of much richer applications (Examples are: Feeds, RSS, Web Services, Mash- ups) • Social Web — It defines how Web 2.0 tend to interact much more with the end user and making the end-user an integral part.As such, Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client- and server-side software,content syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards-oriented webbrowsers may use plug-ins and software extensions to handle the content and the userinteractions. Web 2.0 sites provide users with information storage, creation, anddissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment now known as"Web 1.0".Web 2.0 websites include the following features and techniques: Andrew McAfeeused the acronym SLATES to refer to them:[23]Search Finding information through keyword search.Links Connects information together into a meaningful information ecosystem using the model of the Web, and provides low-barrier social tools.Authoring The ability to create and update content leads to the collaborative work of many rather than just a few web authors. In wikis, users may extend, undo and redo each others work. In blogs, posts and the comments of individuals build up over time. 10
  11. 11. Tags Categorization of content by users adding "tags"—short, usually one-word descriptions—to facilitate searching, without dependence on pre-made categories. Collections of tags created by many users within a single system may be referred to as "folksonomies" (i.e., folk taxonomies).Extensions Software that makes the Web an application platform as well as a document server. These include software like Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash player, Microsoft Silverlight, ActiveX, Oracle Java, Quicktime, Windows Media, etc.Signals The use of syndication technology such as RSS to notify users of content changes.While SLATES forms the basic framework of Enterprise 2.0, it does not contradict allof the higher level Web 2.0 design patterns and business models. In this way, a newWeb 2.0 report from OReilly is quite effective and diligent in interweaving the storyof Web 2.0 with the specific aspects of Enterprise 2.0. It includes discussions of self-service IT, the long tail of enterprise IT demand, and many other consequences of theWeb 2.0 era in the enterprise. The report also makes many sensible recommendationsaround starting small with pilot projects and measuring results, among a fairly longlist.[24][edit] UsageA third important part of Web 2.0 is the social Web, which is a fundamental shift inthe way people communicate. The social web consists of a number of online tools andplatforms where people share their perspectives, opinions, thoughts and experiences.Web 2.0 applications tend to interact much more with the end user. As such, the enduser is not only a user of the application but also a participant by: • Podcasting • Blogging • Tagging • Contributing to RSS • Social bookmarking • Social networkingThe popularity of the term Web 2.0, along with the increasing use of blogs, wikis, andsocial networking technologies, has led many in academia and business to coin aflurry of 2.0s,[25] including Library 2.0,[26] Social Work 2.0,[27] Enterprise 2.0, PR 2.0,[28] Classroom 2.0,[29] Publishing 2.0,[30] Medicine 2.0,[31] Telco 2.0, Travel 2.0,Government 2.0,[32] and even Porn 2.0.[33] Many of these 2.0s refer to Web 2.0technologies as the source of the new version in their respective disciplines and areas.For example, in the Talis white paper "Library 2.0: The Challenge of DisruptiveInnovation", Paul Miller arguesBlogs, wikis and RSS are often held up as exemplary manifestations of Web 2.0. Areader of a blog or a wiki is provided with tools to add a comment or even, in the caseof the wiki, to edit the content. This is what we call the Read/Write web. Talis 11
  12. 12. believes that Library 2.0 means harnessing this type of participation so that librariescan benefit from increasingly rich collaborative cataloging efforts, such as includingcontributions from partner libraries as well as adding rich enhancements, such as bookjackets or movie files, to records from publishers and others.[34]Here, Miller links Web 2.0 technologies and the culture of participation that theyengender to the field of library science, supporting his claim that there is now a"Library 2.0". Many of the other proponents of new 2.0s mentioned here use similarmethods.The meaning of web 2.0 is role dependent, as Dennis D. McDonalds noted. Forexample, some use Web 2.0 to establish and maintain relationships through socialnetworks, while some marketing managers might use this promising technology to"end-run traditionally unresponsive I.T. department[s]."[35]There is a debate over the use of Web 2.0 technologies in mainstream education.Issues under consideration include the understanding of students different learningmodes; the conflicts between ideas entrenched in informal on-line communities andeducational establishments views on the production and authentication of formalknowledge; and questions about privacy, plagiarism, shared authorship and theownership of knowledge and information produced and/or published on line.[36]Marketing For marketers, Web 2.0 offers an opportunity to engage consumers. A growing number of marketers are using Web 2.0 tools to collaborate with consumers on product development, service enhancement and promotion. Companies can use Web 2.0 tools to improve collaboration with both its business partners and consumers. Among other things, company employees have created wikis— Web sites that allow users to add, delete and edit content—to list answers to frequently asked questions about each product, and consumers have added significant contributions. Another marketing Web 2.0 lure is to make sure consumers can use the online community to network among themselves on topics of their own choosing.[37] Mainstream media usage of web 2.0 is increasing. Saturating media hubs— like The New York Times, PC Magazine and Business Week—with links to popular new web sites and services, is critical to achieving the threshold for mass adoption of those services.[38] Web 2.0 offers financial institutions abundant opportunities to engage with customers. Networks such as Twitter, Yelp and Facebook are now becoming common elements of multichannel and customer loyalty strategies, and banks are beginning to use these sites proactively to spread their messages. In a recent article for Bank Technology News, Shane Kite describes how Citigroups Global Transaction Services unit monitors social media outlets to address customer issues and improve products. Furthermore, the FI uses Twitter to release "breaking news" and upcoming events, and YouTube to disseminate videos that feature executives speaking about market news.[39] Small businesses have become more competitive by using Web 2.0 marketing strategies to compete with larger companies. As new businesses grow and develop, new technology is used to decrease the gap between businesses and customers. Social networks have become more intuitive and user friendly to 12
  13. 13. provide information that is easily reached by the end user. For example, companies use Twitter to offer customers coupons and discounts for products and services.[40]According to Google Timeline, the term Web 2.0 was discussed and indexed mostfrequently in 2005, 2007 and 2008. Its average use is continuously declining by 2–4%per quarter since April 2008.[edit] Web 2.0 in education This section may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedias quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the articles layout. (May 2011) Click [show] on right for more details.[show]Web 2.0 technologies provide teachers with new ways to engage students in ameaningful way. "Children raised on new media technologies are less patient withfilling out worksheets and listening to lectures"[41] because students already participateon a global level. The lack of participation in a traditional classroom stems more fromthe fact that students receive better feedback online. Traditional classrooms havestudents do assignments and when they are completed, they are just that, finished.However, Web 2.0 shows students that education is a constantly evolving entity.Whether it is participating in a class discussion, or participating in a forum discussion,the technologies available to students in a Web 2.0 classroom does increase theamount they participate.Will Richardson stated in Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts and other Powerful Web tools forthe Classrooms, 3rd Edition that, "The Web has the potential to radically change whatwe assume about teaching and learning, and it presents us with important questions toponder: What needs to change about our curriculum when our students have theability to reach audiences far beyond our classroom walls?"[42] Web 2.0 tools areneeded in the classroom to prepare both students and teachers for the shift in learningthat Collins and Halverson describe. According to Collins and Halverson, the self-publishing aspects as well as the speed with which their work becomes available forconsumption allows teachers to give students the control they need over theirlearning. This control is the preparation students will need to be successful as learningexpands beyond the classroom."[41]Some may think that these technologies could hinder the personal interaction ofstudents, however all of the research points to the contrary. "Social networking siteshave worried many educators (and parents) because they often bring with themoutcomes that are not positive: narcissism, gossip, wasted time, friending, hurtfeelings, ruined reputations, and sometimes unsavory, even dangerous activities, [onthe contrary,] social networking sites promote conversations and interaction that isencouraged by educators."[43] By allowing students to use the technology tools of Web2.0, teachers are actually giving students the opportunity to learn for themselves andshare that learning with their peers. One of the many implications of Web 2.0technologies on class discussions is the idea that teachers are no longer in control ofthe discussions. Instead, Russell and Sorge (1999) conclude that integrating 13
  14. 14. technology into instruction tends to move classrooms from teacher-dominatedenvironments to ones that are more student-centered. While it is still important forthem to monitor what students are discussing, the actual topics of learning are beingguided by the students themselves.Web 2.0 calls for major shifts in the way education is provided for students. One ofthe biggest shifts that Will Richardson points out in his book Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts,and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms[42] is the fact that education must benot only socially, but collaboratively constructed. This means that students, in a Web2.0 classroom, are expected to collaborate with their peers. By making the shift to aWeb 2.0 classroom, teachers are creating a more open atmosphere where students areexpected to stay engaged and participate in the discussions and learning that is takingplace around them. In fact, there are many ways for educators to use Web 2.0technologies in their classrooms."Weblogs are not built on static chunks of content. Instead they are comprised ofreflections and conversations that in many cases are updated every day [...] Theydemand interaction."[42] Will Richardsons observation of the essence of weblogsspeaks directly to why blogs are so well suited to discussion based classrooms.Weblogs give students a public space to interact with one another and the content ofthe class. As long as the students are invested in the project, the need to see the blogprogress acts as motivation as the blog itself becomes an entity that can demandinteraction.For example, Laura Rochette implemented the use of blogs in her American Historyclass and noted that in addition to an overall improvement in quality, the use of theblogs as an assignment demonstrated synthesis level activity from her students. In herexperience, asking students to conduct their learning in the digital world meant askingstudents "to write, upload images, and articulate the relationship between theseimages and the broader concepts of the course, [in turn] demonstrating that they canbe thoughtful about the world around them."[44] Jennifer Hunt, an 8th grade languagearts teacher of pre-Advanced Placement students shares a similar story. She used theWANDA project and asked students to make personal connections to the texts theyread and to describe and discuss the issues raised in literature selections throughsocial discourse. They engaged in the discussion via wikis and other Web 2.0 tools,which they used to organize, discuss, and present their responses to the texts and tocollaborate with others in their classroom and beyond.Web 2.0 calls for major shifts in the way education is provided for students. One ofthe biggest shifts that Will Richardson points out in his book Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts,and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms is the fact that education must be notonly socially, but collaboratively constructed. This means that students, in a Web 2.0classroom, are expected to collaborate with their peers. However, in order to make aWeb 2.0 classroom work, teachers must also collaborate by using the benefits of Web2.0 to improve their best practices via dialogues with colleagues on both a small and agrand scale. "Through educational networking, educators are able to have a 24/7online experience not unlike the rich connecting and sharing that have typically beenreserved for special interest conferences."[43] 14
  15. 15. The research shows that students are already using these technological tools, but theystill are expected to go to a school where using these tools is frowned upon or evenpunished. If educators are able to harness the power of the Web 2.0 technologiesstudents are using, it could be expected that the amount of participation and classroomdiscussion would increase. It may be that how participation and discussion isproduced is very different from the traditional classroom, but nevertheless it doesincrease.[edit] Web-based applications and desktopsAjax has prompted the development of websites that mimic desktop applications, suchas word processing, the spreadsheet, and slide-show presentation. In 2006 Google,Inc. acquired one of the best-known sites of this broad class, Writely.[45] WYSIWYGwiki and blogging sites replicate many features of PC authoring applications.Several browser-based "operating systems" have emerged, including EyeOS[46] andYouOS.[47] Although coined as such, many of these services function less like atraditional operating system and more as an application platform. They mimic the userexperience of desktop operating-systems, offering features and applications similar toa PC environment, and are able to run within any modern browser. However, theseoperating systems do not directly control the hardware on the clients computer.Numerous web-based application services appeared during the dot-com bubble of1997–2001 and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers. In2005, WebEx acquired one of the better-known of these, Intranets.com, for $45million.[48][edit] Web ApplicationRich Internet applications (RIA) are web 2.0 applications that have many of thecharacteristics of desktop applications and are typically delivered via a web browser.[edit] Distribution of Media[edit] XML and RSSMany regard syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 feature. Syndication usesstandardized protocols to permit end-users to make use of a sites data in anothercontext (such as another website, a browser plugin, or a separate desktop application).Protocols permitting syndication include RSS (really simple syndication, also knownas web syndication), RDF (as in RSS 1.1), and Atom, all of them XML-basedformats. Observers have started to refer to these technologies as web feeds.Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend thefunctionality of sites or permit end-users to interact without centralized websites.[edit] Web APIs 15
  16. 16. Web 2.0 often uses machine-based interactions such as REST and SOAP. Serversoften expose proprietary Application programming interfaces (API), but standardAPIs (for example, for posting to a blog or notifying a blog update) have also comeinto use. Most communications through APIs involve XML or JSON payloads.REST APIs, through their use of self-descriptive messages and hypermedia as theengine of application state, should be self describing once an entry URI is known.Web Services Description Language (WSDL) is the standard way of publishing aSOAP API and there are a range of web service specifications. EMML, or EnterpriseMashup Markup Language by the Open Mashup Alliance, is an XML markuplanguage for creating enterprise mashups.[edit] CriticismCritics of the term claim that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of theWorld Wide Web at all, but merely continues to use so-called "Web 1.0" technologiesand concepts. First, techniques such as AJAX do not replace underlying protocols likeHTTP, but add an additional layer of abstraction on top of them. Second, many of theideas of Web 2.0 had already been featured in implementations on networked systemswell before the term "Web 2.0" emerged. Amazon.com, for instance, has allowedusers 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.[49] Previousdevelopments also came from research in computer-supported collaborative learningand computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) and from established productslike Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino, all phenomena that preceded Web 2.0.But perhaps the most common criticism is that the term is unclear or simply abuzzword. For example, in a podcast interview,[4] Tim Berners-Lee described the term"Web 2.0" as a "piece of jargon":"Nobody really knows what it means...If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then thatis people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along."[4]Other critics labeled Web 2.0 "a second bubble" (referring to the Dot-com bubble ofcirca 1995–2001), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to developthe same product with a lack of business models. For example, The Economist hasdubbed the mid- to late-2000s focus on Web companies "Bubble 2.0".[50] Venturecapitalist Josh Kopelman noted that Web 2.0 had excited only 53,651 people (thenumber of subscribers at that time to TechCrunch, a Weblog covering Web 2.0startups and technology news), too few users to make them an economically viabletarget for consumer applications.[51] Although Bruce Sterling reports hes a fan of Web2.0, he thinks it is now dead as a rallying concept.[clarification needed][52]Critics have cited the language used to describe the hype cycle of Web 2.0[53] as anexample of Techno-utopianist rhetoric.[54]In terms of Web 2.0s social impact, critics such as Andrew Keen argue that Web 2.0has created a cult of digital narcissism and amateurism, which undermines the notionof expertise by allowing anybody, anywhere to share and place undue value upon 16
  17. 17. their own opinions about any subject and post any kind of content, regardless of theirparticular talents, knowledge, credentials, biases or possible hidden agendas. Keens2007 book, Cult of the Amateur, argues that the core assumption of Web 2.0, that allopinions and user-generated content are equally valuable and relevant, is misguided.Additionally, Sunday Times reviewer John Flintoff has characterized Web 2.0 as"creating an endless digital forest of mediocrity: uninformed political commentary,unseemly home videos, embarrassingly amateurish music, unreadable poems, essaysand novels", and also asserted that Wikipedia is full of "mistakes, half truths andmisunderstandings".[55] Michael Gorman, fomer president of the American LibraryAssociation has been vocal about his opposition to Web 2.0 due to the lack ofexpertise that it outwardly claim though he believes that there is some hope for thefuture as "The task before us is to extend into the digital world the virtues ofauthenticity, expertise, and scholarly apparatus that have evolved over the 500 yearsof print, virtues often absent in the manuscript age that preceded print".[56][edit] TrademarkIn November 2004, CMP Media applied to the USPTO for a service mark on the useof the term "WEB 2.0" for live events.[57] On the basis of this application, CMP Mediasent a cease-and-desist demand to the Irish non-profit organization IT@Cork on May24, 2006,[58] but retracted it two days later.[59] The "WEB 2.0" service markregistration passed final PTO Examining Attorney review on May 10, 2006, and wasregistered on June 27, 2006.[57] The European Union application (application number004972212, which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland) was [2] refused onMay 23, 2007.[edit] Web 3.0See also: Semantic WebDefinitions of Web 3.0 vary greatly. Some[60] believe its most important features arethe Semantic Web and personalization. Focusing on the computer elements, ConradWolfram has argued that Web 3.0 is where "the computer is generating newinformation", rather than humans.[61]Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur, considers the Semantic Web an"unrealisable abstraction" and sees Web 3.0 as the return of experts and authorities tothe Web. For example, he points to Bertelsmanns deal with the German Wikipedia toproduce an edited print version of that encyclopedia.[62] CNN Moneys Jessi Hempelexpects Web 3.0 to emerge from new and innovative Web 2.0 services with aprofitable business model.[63]Futurist John Smart, lead author of the Metaverse Roadmap[64] echoes Sharmasperspective, defining Web 3.0 as the first-generation Metaverse (convergence of thevirtual and physical world), a web development layer that includes TV-quality openvideo, 3D simulations, augmented reality, human-constructed semantic standards, andpervasive broadband, wireless, and sensors. Web 3.0s early geosocial (Foursquare,etc.) and augmented reality (Layar, etc.) webs are an extension of Web 2.0sparticipatory technologies and social networks (Facebook, etc.) into 3D space. Of all 17
  18. 18. its metaverse-like developments, Smart suggests Web 3.0s most definingcharacteristic will be the mass diffusion of NTSC-or-better quality open video to TVs,laptops, tablets, and mobile devices, a time when "the internet swallows thetelevision."[65] Smart considers Web 4.0 to be the Semantic Web and in particular, therise of statistical, machine-constructed semantic tags and algorithms, driven by broadcollective use of conversational interfaces, perhaps circa 2020.[66] David Siegelsperspective in Pull: The Power of the Semantic Web, 2009, is consonant with this,proposing that the growth of human-constructed semantic standards and data will be aslow, industry-specific incremental process for years to come, perhaps unlikely to tipinto broad social utility until after 2020.According to some Internet experts Web 3.0 will allow the user to sit back and let theInternet do all of the work for them.[67] Rather than having search engines geartowards your keywords, the search engines will gear towards the user. Keywords willbe searched based on your culture, region, and jargon.[68] For example, when going ona vacation you have to do separate searches for your airline ticket, your hotelreservations, and your car rental. With Web 3.0 you will be able to do all of this inone simple search. The search engine will present the results in a comparative andeasily navigated way to the user.[edit] See also Wikiversity has learning materials about Web 2.0 • Cloud computing • Crowd computing • Enterprise social software • New media • Office suite • buuteeq • Open source governance • Social commerce • Social Networking and UK Libraries • Social shopping • Web 2.0 for development (web2fordev) • You (Time Person of the Year) • Libraries in Second Life • List of free software for Web 2.0 ServicesApplication Domains • Sci-Mate • Business 2.0 • E-learning 2.0 • e-Government Government 2.0 • Health 2.0 • Science 2. 18
  19. 19. ‫سم ال الرحمن الرحيم‬‫وبعد أن كثر الحديث عن الـ 2 ‪ ،web‬وبدأنا نرى العديد من المواقع والخدمات العربية التي تتوافق مع هذا‬ ‫الجيل الجديد من مواقع النترنت، قررت الكتابة في موضوع يمكنني تسميته إن جاز لي 3 ‪ ،web‬ولكن‬ ‫هذه المرة لن يكون جي ً جديدً من مواقع النترنت، بل سيكون جي ً جديدً من التقنية المتكاملة، التي‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ستذيب الحدود بين سطح المكتب وبرامجه، والنترنت وتطبيقاته.‬ ‫ماذا أقصد بـ 3 ‪ Web‬وكيف ستذوب الحدود بين سطح المكتب والنترنت ؟‬ ‫•إنترنت بدون إنترنت !‬ ‫•برامج بدون تحميل أو تنصيب !‬ ‫•بياناتك معك في أي مكان في العالم !‬ ‫•لن تميز بين برمجيات النترنت وبرمجيات سطح المكتب بعد اليوم !‬ ‫هل تبدو لك هذه الجمل غريبة ؟ دعنا نرى بعض التقنيات !‬ ‫•‪Silverlight - Light up the Web‬‬ ‫•‪Gears - Improving Your Web Browser‬‬ ‫•‪Browser Plus - Break Out of Your Browser‬‬ ‫•‪Adobe Flex 3 - Create engaging, cross-platform rich Internet applications‬‬‫لن يسعني المقال هنا للحديث عن كل تقنية على حدة، ولكن من الجيد أن نقول أنها تقنيات مقدمة من‬ ‫‪ ،Microsoft,Yahoo,Google, and Adobe‬وهو يعطي إنطباع أولي عن قوة التنافس والبتكار في هذا‬ ‫المجال.‬ ‫باختصار فإن كل من ‪ Silverlight‬و ‪ Browser Plus‬يقومان بإثراء ‪ ) GUI‬واجهة الستخدام ( بشكل يكسر‬ ‫الفواصل بين واجهات النترنت وواجهات سطح المكتب، ويعطي قوة وفاعلية أكثر مع هذه الواجهات،‬ ‫المثلة المتوفرة في المواقع الخاصة بهذه الخدمات ستوضح لك الفرق بكل تأكيد،أما عن 3 ‪ Flex‬ورغم‬ ‫كونها تعمل في نفس المجال، إل أنها تتميز بتوفير بيئة عمل متكاملة إضافة لكونها أصبحت مفتوحة‬ ‫المصدر إبتداءً من الصدار الثالث.‬ ‫ا‬‫أما الجزء الخير وهو ‪ Google Gear‬فهو أمر مختلف تمامً، وهو ما أسميته سابقً إنترنت دون إنترنت، فهو‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫91‬
  20. 20. ‫ل يختص ببناء برمجيات عبر النترنت فقط، ول يختص بجمالية الواجهات، ولكنه يتيح لك إستخدام هذه‬ ‫البرمجات بكفاءة عالية جدً، وكأنها محملة ومنصبة عبر جهازك الخاص، وهي فع ً ستكون كذلك ‪:D‬‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬‫سنأخذ مثا ً جيدً للتوضيح وهو إستخدام ‪ Gear‬مع خدمة ‪ ،Google Docs‬والتي تتيح لك إنشاء وحفظ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ل‬ ‫الملفات عبر النترنت وتحريرها في برامج شبية ب ‪ Word + Excel + Power point‬إضافة لمكانية‬ ‫جديدة وهي عمل ‪ Form‬كإستفتاءات عبر النترنت يتولى ‪ Google Docs‬تحليلها وعرض نتائجها لك.‬‫بعد أن تقوم بتحميل ‪ Gear‬وتنصيبه على جهازك، عند دخولك إلى ‪ Google Docs‬ستظهر لك رسالة‬ ‫تفيد بأن هذا الموقع يدعم ‪ Gear‬وهل تود إتاحة الصلحيات له ؟ بالطبع نحن نريد‬ ‫إذ ً عندما نعطيه الصلحيات ماذا سيحدث ؟‬ ‫ا‬‫سيتم حفظ الملفات المنشأة في ال ‪ Docs‬عبر جهازك الخاص، وسيتم حفظ بعض الملفات أيضً لزيادة‬ ‫ا‬ ‫كفاءة وسرعة الخدمة، وستسفيد من :‬ ‫1.التفاعل مع البرنامج سيكون أسرع من أي وقت مضى‬ ‫2.لن تنتظر تحميل الموقع في كل مرة تود القيام باستخدامه ) شبيه بـ ‪( offline mode‬‬ ‫3.سيتم إضافة إيقونة على سطح المكتب للوصول السريع للبرنامج ) لحظ البرنامج وليس‬ ‫الموقع، أيقونة وليس رابط (.‬ ‫4.ستتمكن من مشاهدة ملفاتك بل والتعديل عليها حتى بعد أن يتم إغلق حساب النترنت،‬ ‫وسيتم عمل تحديث للملفات فور التصال بالنترنت ثاني ً.‬ ‫ة‬ ‫5.ستيتطيع الوصول لهذه الملفات عبر حسابك في ‪ Google‬من أي مكان في العالم.‬ ‫إذً نحن نشهد تحول جديد في عالم التقنية، يذيب الفوارق بين برمجيات النترنت وسطح المكتب،‬ ‫ا‬ ‫!ويجعلها أكثر سرعة، أكثر كفاءة، بل وأكثر فائدة، لكونها تتيح وصول للبيانات من أي مكان‬ ‫لذلك لم أقل: الجيل القادم، برمجيات النترنت تنافس سطح المكتب‬ ‫.ولكن قلــــت: الجيل القادم، برمجيات النترنت تتجاوز سطح المكتب‬ ‫دمتم بود‬ ‫02‬