Web 2.0 ExamplesInfluencing the Geoweb
Introduction to the GeowebGregory L. GuntherUniversity of Colorado at Denver
(Karp 200 7)
Tim O’Reilly Definition of Web2.0
I said I'm not fond of definitions, but I woke up this morning with the start of one in my head: Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.
(O’Reilly, 2005)
I define Web 2.0 as the design of systems that harness network effects to get better the more people use them, or more colloquially, as “harnessing collective intelligence.” This includes explicit network-enabled collaboration, to be sure, but it should encompass every way that people connected to a network create synergistic effects.
(Carpenter 2008)
Before We Proceed!
Interoperability Webservices Internet as a platform (foundation of
web 2.0) Models and Patterns
Interoperiblity
Interoperability: is connecting people, data and diverse systems. The term can be defined in a technical way or in a broad way, taking into account social, political and organizational factors. System specific: “the ability to exchange and use
information across a large, heterogeneous network made up of several local information system nodes.”
Semantic Interoperability: is the ability of two or more computer systems to exchange information and have the meaning of that information accurately and automatically interpreted by the receiving system.
(Interoperability, 2009)
Achieving Interoperability Web 1.0
JDBC, CORBA, DCOM Web 2.0
Coarse Grained XML encoded address vs. individual method calls
(CORBA and DCOM) More close alignment with business process, not its
parts Loosely Coupled
Plug and Play Enterprise data models can change but won’t
break applications Message based
Web Services XML, WMS, WFS
Webservices Based on the broad acceptance of XML for
data encoding, transport and messaging Microsoft Definition
“Web services are applications that use standard transports, encodings, and protocols to exchange information. With broad support across vendors and businesses, Web services enable computer systems on any platform to communicate over corporate intranets, extranets, and across the Internet with support for end-to-end security, reliable messaging, distributed transactions”
W3C Definition “software system designed to support interoperable
Machine to Machine interaction over a network. Web services are frequently just application programming interfaces (API) that can be accessed over a network, such as the Internet, and executed on a remote system hosting the requested services. “(Webservices, 2009)
Why Webservices
Services are reusable units providing business functionality that are:Clearly defined using standard policies,
practices, and frameworksClearly described (xml)AutonomousAbstractions of the underlying business
logic and functionality Actual overlay process not necessary
Easy to understand: one party delivers a service according to a contract with the other party
(King, 2006)
Is Everything On the Web A Webservice
NO! The WWW provides mechanism for
people and organizations to share information
Many web pages provide “services” to the user that are supported by a variety of software, most of this functionality is not currently created with Web Services
Built on the same basic standards
The Internet Is The Foundation of Web 2.0
Patterns and Models
Tools for building system architectures and future system implementationsAbstract, durable and can be repurposed
across domainsPattern Formulation
Users can click on features within an ArcIMS website to obtain attribute Data
An entity obtains information about geographic features online
(Govenor et al. 2009)
Pattern Formulation
(Govenor et al. 2009)
PatternContext
Derived RequirementsProblem
Business problem (story)Context
Generalized• Specifications, static structure, dynamic behavior
Consequences References Business problem resolved Implementations• Known use
Reference Model
A
B C
D E
F G
H
Model
Models, Patterns, Architectures: Oh My!
(OASIS, 2006)
Tim O’s List of 1.0 vs. 2.0 Examples
O’Reilly, 2005)
DoubleClick AdSense
Ofoto or SnapFish Flickr
Personal Websites Blogs
HTML with content Intended for
specific groups (family and friends)
1 way communication (no comments)
HTML with content but also feed (RSS)
Intended for wider communities
Much easier to find (search engines, blog crawlers, aggregators) because of feed
Encourage community participation (comments)
Community affiliation with BlogRoll
Screenscaping Webservices “Crawling” web
pages for data Integration of
webpages Unstructured
Structured and predictable
Content is data oriented, not presentation
Based on open standards
Integration is the goal, not a hack
Context of data integration
Taxonomies Folksonomies Yahoo Directory
Tag Cloud
GeographyNetwork/USGS GeodeArcGIS Online/WeoGeo
ArcIMS ArcGIS Server
Modeling Web 2.0
Users
Client applications/runtimes
Connectivity/reachability
Services
Capabilities
(Govenor et al. 2009)
Web 2.0 Reference Architecture
(Govenor et al. 2009)
Client application tier
Service tier
Resource tier
Standards protocols
Client Tier
Controller State management Security Virtual machine Rendering Communication
(Govenor et al. 2009)
Service Tier
Service provider interface Business logic Invocation layer
(Govenor et al. 2009)
Resource Tier
Database File system Legacy systems
(Govenor et al. 2009)
Common Web 2.0 Patterns Influencing the Geoweb Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) Software as a Service (SaaS) Participation-Collaboration Asynchronous Particle Update Mashup Rich User Experience Collaborative Tagging Structured Information
Formulated By Real Examples….
References Cited Carpenter, Hutch. Tim O’Reilly Course Corrects the Definition of
Web 2.0. Weblog entry. I’m Not Actually A Geek. October 1, 2008. http://bhc3.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/tim-oreilly-course-corrects-the-definition-of-web-20/.
Governor, James, Dion Hunchcliffe and Duane Nickull (2009). Web 2.0 Architectures. California: O’Reilly Media Inc.
Interoperability. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 7 Aug 2009, 10:13 UTC. 7 Aug 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interoperability&oldid=306573452.
Karp, David. A Web 2.0 Tag Cloud. Weblog entry. A Tangie Slice of Web 2.o. September 25, 2007. http://tangyslice.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/a-web-20-tag-cloud/.
King, JJ. SOA What? Introduction to Service Oriented Architecture. Rocky Mountain Oracle Users Group. Denver, 2006.
References Cited
OASIS. (2006). Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture 1.0. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/19679/soa-rm-cs.pdf
O'Reilly, Tim. Web 2.o: Compact Definition. Weblog entry. O’Reilly Radar. October 2005. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web-20-compact-definition.html.
Web service. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 7 Aug 2009, 18:12 UTC. 7 Aug 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_service&oldid=306643330.