introduction notes - detailed

8/7/2019 Introduction Notes - Detailed

1/29

What Is Web 2.0?

Web 2.0

The term "Web 2.0" refers to a perceived second generation of web development and

design, that aims to facilitate communication, secure information sharing, interoperability,and collaboration on the World Wide Web. Web 2.0 concepts have led to the developmentand evolution of web-based communities, hosted services, and applications; such as social-

networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies.

The term was first used by Dale Dougherty and Craig Cline and shortly after became notable

after the O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004.[1][2] Although the term suggests a newversion of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical

specifications, but rather to changes in the ways software developers and end-users utilize

the Web. According to Tim O'Reilly:

Web 2.0 is the businessrevolution in the computer industry caused by the move tothe Internet as a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success onthat new platform.[3]

O'Reilly has noted that the "2.0" refers to the historical context of web businesses "coming

back" after the 2001 collapse of the dot-com bubble, in addition to the distinguishingcharacteristics of the projects that survived the bust or thrived thereafter.[4]

Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, has questioned whether one can use theterm in any meaningful way, since many of the technological components of Web 2.0 have

existed since the early days of the Web.[5][6]

Definition

Web 2.0 encapsulates the idea of the proliferation of interconnectivity and interactivity ofweb-delivered content. Tim O'Reilly regards Web 2.0 as the way that business embraces the

strengths of the web and uses it as a platform. O'Reilly considers that Eric Schmidt'sabridged 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 toexpecting the Internet to suit as a platform (effectively "fighting the Internet").

In the opening talk of the first Web 2.0 conference, O'Reilly and John Battelle summarizedwhat 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, anarchitecture of participation where users can contribute website content creates networkeffects. 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".)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_designhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_sharinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_servicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_applicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking_siteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking_siteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_sharinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Doughertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Clinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Reilly_Mediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-graham-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_developerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_(computer_science)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_O'Reillyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Businesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_industryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_(computing)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubblehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Leehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-developerWorks_Interviews:_Tim_Berners-Lee-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_O'Reillyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Businesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_E._Schmidthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_servicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0_Conference_(2004)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Battellehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_(software)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tailhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tailhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_architecturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_betahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_designhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_sharinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_servicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_applicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking_siteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_networking_siteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_sharinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Doughertyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Clinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Reilly_Mediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-graham-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_developerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_(computer_science)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_O'Reillyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Businesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_industryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_(computing)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubblehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Leehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-developerWorks_Interviews:_Tim_Berners-Lee-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_O'Reillyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Businesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_E._Schmidthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_servicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0_Conference_(2004)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Battellehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_(software)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tailhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tailhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_architecturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_beta


2/29

Web 2.0 technology encourages lightweight business models enabled by syndication ofcontent and of service and by ease of picking-up by early adopters.[7]

O'Reilly provided examples of companies or products that embody these principles in hisdescription of his four levels in the hierarchy of Web 2.0 sites:

Level-3 applications, the most "Web 2.0"-oriented, exist only on the Internet,deriving their effectiveness from the inter-human connections and from the networkeffects that Web 2.0 makes possible, and growing in effectiveness in proportion as

people make more use of them. O'Reilly gave eBay, Craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us,Skype, dodgeball, and AdSense as examples.

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 itscommunity-generated tag database.

Level-1 applications operate offline but gain features online. O'Reilly pointed to

Writely (now Google Docs & Spreadsheets) and iTunes (because of its music-storeportion).

Level-0 applications work as well offline as online. O'Reilly gave the examples of

MapQuest, Yahoo! Local, and Google Maps (mapping-applications using contributionsfrom users to advantage could rank as "level 2", like Google Earth). In addition,

Gmail.

Characteristics

Flickr, A Web 2.0 web site that allows users to upload and share photos

Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. They can build onthe interactive facilities of "Web 1.0" to provide "Network as platform" computing, allowing

users to run software-applications entirely through a browser. [2] Users can own the data ona Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data.[8][2] These sites may have an

"Architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as theyuse it.[2][1] This stands in contrast to traditional websites, the sort that limited visitors to

viewing and whose content only the site's owner could modify. Web 2.0 sites often feature arich, user-friendly interface based on Ajax[2][1] and similar client-side interactivity

frameworks, or full client-serverapplication frameworks such as OpenLaszlo, Flex, and theZK framework.[8][2].

The concept of Web-as-participation-platform captures many of these characteristics. BartDecrem, a founder and former CEO of Flock, calls Web 2.0 the "participatory Web"[9] and

regards the Web-as-information-source as Web 1.0.

The impossibility of excluding group-members who dont contribute to the provision of

goods from sharing profits gives rise to the possibility that rational members will prefer to

withhold their contribution of effort and free-ride on the contribution of others.[10] Accordingto Best,[11] 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[12] and collective intelligence[13] by way of user participation, can also beviewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_(disambiguation)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_modelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_syndicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_adopterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del.icio.ushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skypehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball_(service)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdSensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Docs_%26_Spreadsheetshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITuneshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapQuesthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Yahoo!-owned_sites_and_serviceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Mapshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmailhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_1.0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_operating_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-hinchcliffe-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-graham-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-graham-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-serverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_frameworkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenLaszlohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flexhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZK_frameworkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-hinchcliffe-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_culturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Decremhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Decremhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flock_(web_browser)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-decrem-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_(disambiguation)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_modelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_syndicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_adopterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craigslisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del.icio.ushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skypehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball_(service)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdSensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Docs_%26_Spreadsheetshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITuneshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapQuesthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Yahoo!-owned_sites_and_serviceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Mapshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmailhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_1.0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_operating_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-hinchcliffe-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-graham-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-graham-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-serverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_frameworkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenLaszlohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flexhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZK_frameworkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-hinchcliffe-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-oreilly-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_culturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Decremhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Decremhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flock_(web_browser)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-decrem-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-12


3/29

Technology overview

The sometimes complex and continually evolving technology infrastructure of Web 2.0

includes server-software, content-syndication, messaging-protocols, standards-orientedbrowsers with plugins and extensions, and various client-applications. The differing, yet

complementary approaches of such elements provide Web 2.0 sites with information-

storage, creation, and dissemination challenges and capabilities that go beyond what thepublic formerly expected in the environment of the so-called "Web 1.0".

Web 2.0 websites typically include some of the following features/techniques. AndrewMcAfee used the acronym SLATES to refer to them:

Search

the ease of finding information through keyword search which makes the platformvaluable.

Linksguide to important pieces of information. The best pages are the most frequently

linked to.

Authoringthe ability to create constantly updating content over a platform that is shifted frombeing the creation of a few to being the constantly updated, interlinked work. In

wikis, the content is iterative in the sense that the people undo and redo eachother's work. In blogs, content is cumulative in that posts and comments of

individuals are accumulated over time.Tags

categorization of content by creating tags that are simple, one-word descriptions tofacilitate searching and avoid rigid, pre-made categories.

Extensionsautomation of some of the work and pattern matching by using algorithms e.g.

amazon.com recommendations.Signals

the use of RSS (Really Simple Syndication) technology to notify users with anychanges of the content by sending e-mails to them.[14]

Usage

Government 2.0

Web 2.0 initiatives are being employed within the public sector, giving more currency to theterm Government 2.0. For instance, Web 2.0 websites such as Twitter, YouTube and

Facebook have helped in providing a feasible way for citizens to connect with highergovernment officials, which was otherwise nearly impossible. Direct interaction of higher

government authorities with citizens is replacing the age-old 'single-sided communication'

with evolved and more public interaction methodologies.[15]

Higher education

Universities are using Web 2.0 in order to reach out and engage with Generation Y and

other prospective students according to recent reports.[16] Examples of this are: socialnetworking websites YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Youmeo, Twitter and Flickr; upgrading

institutions websites in Generation Y-friendly ways (e.g., stand-alone micro-websites with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_serverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_syndicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_network_protocolshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browserhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluginhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_data_storagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_data_storagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_2.0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Yhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTubehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebookhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youmeohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_serverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_syndicationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_network_protocolshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browserhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluginhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_data_storagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_data_storagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_2.0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Yhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTubehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebookhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youmeohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickr


4/29

minimal navigation); and virtual learning environments such as Moodle enable prospectivestudents to log on and ask questions.[clarification needed]

In addition to free social networking websites, schools have contracted with companies thatprovide many of the same services as MySpace and Facebook, but can integrate with their

existing database. Companies such as Harris Connect, iModules, and Publishing Concepts

have developed alumni online community software packages that provide schools with away to communicate to their alumni and allow alumni to communicate with each other in asafe, secure environment.

Public diplomacy

Web 2.0 initiatives have been employed in public diplomacy for the Israeli government. The

country is believed to be the first to have its own official blog,[17]MySpace page,[18]YouTubechannel,[19]Facebook page[20] and a political blog.[21] The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

started the country's video blog as well as its political blog.[21] The Foreign Ministry also helda microblogging press conference via Twitter about its war with Hamas, with ConsulDavid

Saranga answering live questions from a worldwide public in common text-messaging

abbreviations.[22]

The questions and answers were later posted on IsraelPolitik, the country'sofficial political blog.[23]

Social Work 2.0

Social work 2.0 represents the use of interactive web technologies in the delivery of socialservices. The term first appeared in press in 2008. [24] In March, 2009, the New Social

Worker Online started a technology blog called Social Work 2.0.[25] Social workers use web

2.0 technologies for clinical practice, community organizing and administrative and policyfunctions. Social workers use chat programs to provide real-time (synchronous) online

therapy, or e-therapy. [26] Web 2.0 technologies also allow for self-directed treatment

through web-based modules. Self-directed treatments, such as Australias MoodGYM [27], arebased on a CBT model and have demonstrated success in reducing symptoms of depression

and anxiety.[28] Self-directed treatments have the potential to provide services to thousandsof people at minimal costs.[29] Community organizers uses interactive web technologies to

rally constituents and identify services in traditionally disadvantaged neighborhoods. Forexample, the National Association of Social Workers provides updates on legislative actions

via Twitter.[30] Geographical Information Systems (GIS) technologies can be used to analyzeinformation about specific geographical regions, such as neighborhoods, zip codes, cities or

counties. Advocacy groups can analyze campaign demographics to improve voterparticipation on key social services issues. Consumer rights advocates can use GIS to

identify where services are distributed in an area in order to better advocate for access toservice and improved service delivery. The use of web-based technologies is not without its

problems for social work. Social workers are state regulated, leading to concerns aboutproviding services over the internet to people in different states. Current licensure laws do

not apply to services provided outside of the licensing state. Clients from one state whowish to file a complaint or lawsuit against an e-therapist in another state are in a regulatory

limbo. When a clinician in Pennsylvania provides services to a client in Texas, the questionis, which states laws govern? [31]. Until licensing laws are updated to regulate out-of-state

practice, social workers should assume that practicing beyond state borders violates theirlicense.[32] Despite these limitations, the use of Web 2.0 technologies provides an important

advance in social service delivery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moodlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarifyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarifyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-Ynet-16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-Guard-17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTubehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-cnn-18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebookhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-Ynet2-19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-Ynet3-20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_bloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-Ynet3-20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblogginghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflicthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consulhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sarangahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sarangahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-JP-21http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsraelPolitikhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_bloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-NYTs-22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-23http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-26http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-27http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-30http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-31http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moodlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarifyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-Ynet-16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MySpacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-Guard-17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTubehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-cnn-18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebookhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-Ynet2-19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-Ynet3-20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_bloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-Ynet3-20http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microblogginghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflicthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consulhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sarangahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sarangahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-JP-21http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IsraelPolitikhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_bloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-NYTs-22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-23http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-25http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-26http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-27http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-30http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-31


5/29

Web-based applications and desktops

Ajax has prompted the development of websites that mimic desktop applications, such as

word processing, the spreadsheet, and slide-show presentation. WYSIWYG wiki sitesreplicate 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.[33]

Several browser-based "operating systems" have emerged, including EyeOS[34] and YouOS.[35] Although coined as such, many of these services function less like a traditional operatingsystem 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.

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, WebExacquired one of the better-known of these, Intranets.com, for USD45 million.[36]

Internet applications

XML and RSS

Advocates of "Web 2.0" 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'sdata 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 "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 feed" as the

usability of Web 2.0 evolves and the more user-friendly Feeds icon supplants the RSS icon.

Specialized protocols

Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend thefunctionality of sites or permit end-users to interact without centralized websites.

Web APIs

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.

1. REST (Representational State Transfer) Web APIs use HTTP alone to interact, with

XML (eXtensible Markup Language) or JSON payloads;

2. SOAP involves POSTing more elaborate XML messages and requests to a server thatmay contain quite complex, but pre-defined, instructions for the server to follow.

Often servers use proprietary APIs, but standard APIs (for example, for posting to a blog ornotifying a blog update) have also come into wide use. Most communications through APIs

involve XML or JSON payloads.

See also Web Services Description Language (WSDL) (the standard way of publishing aSOAP API) and this list of Web Service specifications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentation_programhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Docs_%26_Spreadsheetshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-32http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EyeOShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-33http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouOShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-34http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubblehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebExhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intranets.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-35http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Frameworkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(standard)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_feedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(software)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML_Friends_Networkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_State_Transferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSONhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP#Request_methodshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Services_Description_Languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Web_service_specificationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_processorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentation_programhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WYSIWYGhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Docs_%26_Spreadsheetshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-32http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EyeOShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-33http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouOShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-34http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubblehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebExhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intranets.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-35http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS_(file_format)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Frameworkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom_(standard)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_feedhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(software)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML_Friends_Networkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_State_Transferhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSONhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP#Request_methodshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Services_Description_Languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Web_service_specifications


6/29

Economics

Analysis of the economic implications of "Web 2.0" applications and loosely-associated

technologies such as wikis, blogs, social-networking, open-source, open-content, file-sharing, peer-production, etc. has also gained scientific attention. This area of research

investigates the implications Web 2.0 has for an economy and the principles underlying the

economy of Web 2.0.

Cass Sunstein's book "Infotopia" discussed the Hayekian nature of collaborative production,

characterized by decentralized decision-making, directed by (often non-monetary) pricesrather than central planners in business or government.

Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams argue in their book Wikinomics: How Mass

Collaboration Changes Everything (2006) that the economy of "the new web" depends onmass collaboration. Tapscott and Williams regard it as important for new media companies

to find ways of how to make profit with the help of Web 2.0. [citation needed] The prospectiveInternet-based economy that they term "Wikinomics" would depend on the principles of

openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally. They identify seven Web 2.0 business-

models (peer pioneers, ideagoras, prosumers, new Alexandrians, platforms for participation,global plantfloor, wiki workplace).[citation needed]

Organizations could make use of these principles and models in order to prosper with the

help of Web 2.0-like applications: "Companies can design and assemble products with theircustomers, and in some cases customers can do the majority of the value creation".[37] "In

each instance the traditionally passive buyers of editorial and advertising take active,participatory roles in value creation."[38] Tapscott and Williams suggest business strategies

as "models where masses of consumers, employees, suppliers, business partners, and evencompetitors cocreate value in the absence of direct managerial control". [39] Tapscott and

Williams see the outcome as an economic democracy.

Some other views in the scientific debate agree with Tapscott and Williams that value-

creation increasingly depends on harnessing open source/content, networking, sharing, andpeering, but disagree that this will result in an economic democracy, predicting a subtle

form and deepening of exploitation, in which Internet-based global outsourcing reduceslabor-costs by transferring jobs from workers in wealthy nations to workers in poor nations.

In such a view, the economic implications of a new web might include on the one hand theemergence of new business-models based on global outsourcing, whereas on the other hand

non-commercial online platforms could undermine profit-making and anticipate a co-operative economy. For example, Tiziana Terranova speaks of "free labor" (performed

without payment) in the case where prosumers produce surplus value in the circulation-sphere of the cultural industries.[40]

Some examples of Web 2.0 business models that attempt to generate revenues in online

shopping and online marketplaces are referred to as social commerce and social shopping.Social commerce involves user-generated marketplaces where individuals can set up onlineshops and link their shops in a networked marketplace, drawing on concepts of electronic

commerce and social networking. Social shopping involves customers interacting with eachother while shopping, typically online, and often in a social network environment. This

involvement of customers in a collaborative business model is also known as customer

involvement management (CIM). Academic research on the economic value implications ofsocial commerce and having sellers in online marketplaces link to each others' shops has

been conducted by researchers in the business school at Columbia University.[41]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Tapscotthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinomicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinomicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideagorashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosumerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-36http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-37http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-38http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-39http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_shoppinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_shoppinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_involvement_managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_involvement_managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-40http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Tapscotthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinomicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikinomicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideagorashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosumerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_neededhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-36http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-37http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-38http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-39http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_shoppinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_commercehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_shoppinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_involvement_managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_involvement_managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-40


7/29

Criticism

The criticism exists that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web

at all, but merely continues to use so-called "Web 1.0" 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 "Web 2.0"emerged. Amazon.com, for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumerguides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to

outside developers in 2002.[42] Previous developments also came from research incomputer-supported collaborative learning and computer-supported cooperative work and

from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino.

In a podcast interview, 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 that is

people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along."[5]

Other criticism has included the term a second bubble (referring to the Dot-com bubble of

circa 19952001), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop thesame product with a lack of business models. The Economisthas written of "Bubble 2.0".[43]

Venture capitalistJosh Kopelman noted that Web 2.0 had excited only 530,651 people (thenumber of subscribers at that time to TechCrunch, a Weblog covering Web 2.0 matters), too

few users to make them an economically viable target for consumer applications.[44]

Although Bruce Sterling reports he's a fan of Web 2.0, he thinks it is now dead as a rallying

concept.[45]

Critics have cited the language used to describe the hype cycle of Web 2.0 [46] as an example

ofTechno-utopianist rhetoric.[47] Web 2.0 is not the first example of communication creatinga 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 technologicalsublime in terms that would later make their way into Web 2.0 jargon. Indeed, several

years before the dot com stock market crash the then-Federal Reserve chairman AlanGreenspan described the run up of stock values as irrational exuberance. Shortly before the

crash of 2000 a book by Shiller, Robert J. Irrational Exuberance. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 2000. was released detailing the overly optimistic euphoria of the dot com

industry.

Trademark

In November 2004, CMP Media applied to the USPTO for a service mark on the use of theterm "WEB 2.0" for live events.[48] On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a cease-

and-desist demand to the Irish non-profit organization IT@Cork on May 24, 2006,[49] butretracted it two days later.[50] The "WEB 2.0" service mark registration passed final PTO

Examining Attorney review on May 10, 2006, and was registered on June 27, 2006.[48] The

European Union application (application number 004972212, which would conferunambiguous status in Ireland) remains currently pending after its filing on March 23, 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX_(programming)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-41http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Supported_Collaborative_Learninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSCWhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Noteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Dominohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Leehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-developerWorks_Interviews:_Tim_Berners-Lee-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubblehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-42http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capitalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Kopelmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechCrunchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-43http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Sterlinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-44http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-45http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-utopianismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-46http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMP_Mediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPTOhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_markhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-uspto-47http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT@Corkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-48http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-49http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-uspto-47http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX_(programming)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTPhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-41http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Supported_Collaborative_Learninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSCWhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Noteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Dominohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Leehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-developerWorks_Interviews:_Tim_Berners-Lee-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubblehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-42http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_capitalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Kopelmanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechCrunchhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-43http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Sterlinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-44http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-45http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-utopianismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-46http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMP_Mediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPTOhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_markhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-uspto-47http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT@Corkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-48http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-49http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0#cite_note-uspto-47http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union


8/29

The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web.Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent

shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeoutstypically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at

center stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show theirstrength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other.

The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reillyand MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly VP, noted that far

from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting newapplications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What's more, the companies

that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the

dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to actionsuch as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0

Conference was born.

In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5million citations in Google. But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what

Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, andothers accepting it as the new conventional wisdom.

This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0.

In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example:

Web 1.0 Web 2.0

DoubleClick --> Google AdSense

Ofoto --> Flickr

Akamai --> BitTorrent

mp3.com --> Napster

Britannica Online --> Wikipedia

personal websites --> blogging

evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB

domain name speculation --> search engine optimization

page views --> cost per click

screen scraping --> web services

publishing --> participation

content management

systems--> wikis
http://www.carlotaperez.org/http://www.carlotaperez.org/http://www.web2con.com/http://www.web2con.com/http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/not_20.htmlhttp://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/not_20.htmlhttp://www.carlotaperez.org/http://www.carlotaperez.org/http://www.web2con.com/http://www.web2con.com/http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/not_20.htmlhttp://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/not_20.html


9/29

directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")

stickiness --> syndication

The list went on and on. But what was it that made us identify one application or approach

as "Web 1.0" and another as "Web 2.0"? (The question is particularly urgent because theWeb 2.0 meme has become so widespread that companies are now pasting it on as amarketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means. The question is

particularly difficult because many of those buzzword-addicted startups are definitely notWeb 2.0, while some of the applications we identified as Web 2.0, like Napster and

BitTorrent, are not even properly web applications!) We began trying to tease out theprinciples that are demonstrated in one way or another by the success stories of web 1.0

and by the most interesting of the new applications.

1. The Web As Platform

Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a

gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tietogether a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles,at a varying distance from that core.

Figure 1 shows a "meme map" of Web 2.0 that was developed at a brainstorming session

during FOO Camp, a conference at O'Reilly Media. It's very much a work in progress, butshows the many ideas that radiate out from the Web 2.0 core.

For example, at the first Web 2.0 conference, in October 2004, John Battelle and I listed apreliminary set of principles in our opening talk. The first of those principles was "The web
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html#mememaphttp://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html#mememap


10/29

as platform." Yet that was also a rallying cry of Web 1.0 darling Netscape, which went downin flames after a heated battle with Microsoft. What's more, two of our initial Web 1.0

exemplars, DoubleClick and Akamai, were both pioneers in treating the web as a platform.People don't often think of it as "web services", but in fact, ad serving was the first widely

deployed web service, and the first widely deployed "mashup" (to use another term that hasgained currency of late). Every banner ad is served as a seamless cooperation between two

websites, delivering an integrated page to a reader on yet another computer. Akamai alsotreats the network as the platform, and at a deeper level of the stack, building a

transparent caching and content delivery network that eases bandwidth congestion.

Nonetheless, these pioneers provided useful contrasts because later entrants have taken

their solution to the same problem even further, understanding something deeper about the

nature of the new platform. Both DoubleClick and Akamai were Web 2.0 pioneers, yet wecan also see how it's possible to realize more of the possibilities by embracing additional

Web 2.0 design patterns.

Let's drill down for a moment into each of these three cases, teasing out some of theessential elements of difference.

Netscape vs. Google

If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most certainly the standard

bearer for Web 2.0, if only because their respective IPOs were defining events for each era.So let's start with a comparison of these two companies and their positioning.

Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship

product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use theirdominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products.

Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in

theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market.Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar,

Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtopwith information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who

would purchase Netscape servers.

In the end, both web browsers and web servers turned out to be commodities, and value

moved "up the stack" to services delivered over the web platform.

Google, by contrast, began its life as a native web application, never sold or packaged, but

delivered as a service, with customers paying, directly or indirectly, for the use of thatservice. None of the trappings of the old software industry are present. No scheduled

software releases, just continuous improvement. No licensing or sale, just usage. No portingto different platforms so that customers can run the software on their own equipment, just

a massively scalable collection of commodity PCs running open source operating systemsplus homegrown applications and utilities that no one outside the company ever gets to see.

At bottom, Google requires a competency that Netscape never needed: databasemanagement. Google isn't just a collection of software tools, it's a specialized database.

Without the data, the tools are useless; without the software, the data is unmanageable.Software licensing and control over APIs--the lever of power in the previous era--is

irrelevant because the software never need be distributed but only performed, and alsobecause without the ability to collect and manage the data, the software is of little use. In
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=3#designpatternshttp://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=3#designpatterns


11/29

fact, the value of the software is proportional to the scale and dynamism of the data it helpsto manage.

Google's service is not a server--though it is delivered by a massive collection of internetservers--nor a browser--though it is experienced by the user within the browser. Nor does

its flagship search service even host the content that it enables users to find. Much like a

phone call, which happens not just on the phones at either end of the call, but on thenetwork in between, Google happens in the space between browser and search engine anddestination content server, as an enabler or middleman between the user and his or her

online experience.

While both Netscape and Google could be described as software companies, it's clear that

Netscape belonged to the same software world as Lotus, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, and othercompanies that got their start in the 1980's software revolution, while Google's fellows are

other internet applications like eBay, Amazon, Napster, and yes, DoubleClick and Akamai.

FolksonomyNot to be confused with folk taxonomy.

Folksonomy (also known as collaborative tagging, social classification, socialindexing, and social tagging) is the practice and method of collaboratively creating andmanaging tags to annotate and categorize content. Folksonomydescribes the bottom-up

classification systems that emerge from social tagging.[1] In contrast to traditional subject

indexing, metadata is generated not only by experts but also by creators and consumers ofthe content. Usually, freely chosen keywords are used instead of a controlled vocabulary.[2]

Folksonomy(from folk+ taxonomy) is a user-generated taxonomy.

Folksonomies became popular on the Web around 2004 as part of social software

applications including social bookmarking and annotating photographs. Tagging, which ischaracteristic ofWeb 2.0 services, allows non-expert users to collectively classify and find

information. Some websites include tag clouds as a way to visualize tags in a folksonomy.

Typically, folksonomies are Internet-based, although they are also used in other contexts.

Aggregating the tags of many users creates a folksonomy.[1] Aggregation is the pullingtogether of all of the tags in an automated way.[1] Folksonomic tagging is intended to make

a body of information increasingly easy to search, discover, and navigate over time. A well-developed folksonomy is ideally accessible as a shared vocabulary that is both originated

by, and familiar to, its primary users. Two widely cited examples of websites usingfolksonomic tagging are Flickr and Delicious, although Flickr may not be a good example of

folksonomy.[3]

As folksonomies develop in Internet-mediated social environments, users can discover who

used a given tag and see the other tags that this person has used. In this way, folksonomyusers can discover the tag sets of another user who tends to interpret and tag content in a

way that makes sense to them. The result can be a rewarding gain in the user's capacity tofind related content (a practice known as "pivot browsing"). Part of the appeal of

folksonomy is its inherent subversiveness: when faced with the choice of the search toolsthat Web sites provide, folksonomies can be seen as a rejection of the search engine status

quo in favor of tools that are created by the community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_(media_and_publishing)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-Smith2008-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_indexinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_indexinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keywordhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-Voss000-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_contenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_bookmarkinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloudhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-Smith2008-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-Smith2008-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicious_(website)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_enginehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborativehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_(media_and_publishing)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-Smith2008-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_indexinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_indexinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keywordhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-Voss000-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_contenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_softwarehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_bookmarkinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloudhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-Smith2008-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-Smith2008-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flickrhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delicious_(website)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine


12/29

Folksonomy creation and searching tools are not part of the underlying World Wide Webprotocols. Folksonomies arise in Web-based communities where provisions are made at the

site level for creating and using tags. These communities are established to enable Webusers to label and share user-generated content, such as photographs, or to collaboratively

label existing content, such as Web sites, books, works in the scientific and scholarlyliteratures, and blog entries.

Practical evaluation

Folksonomy is criticized because its lack ofterminological control causes it to be more likelyto produce unreliable and inconsistent results. If tags are freely chosen (instead of taken

from a given vocabulary), synonyms (multiple tags for the same concept), homonymy(same tag used with different meaning), and polysemy (same tag with multiple related

meanings) are likely to arise, lowering the efficiency of content indexing and searching.[4]

Other reasons for meta noise are the lack ofstemming (normalization of word inflections)and the heterogeneity of users and contexts.

Classification systems have several problems: they can be slow to change, they reflect (and

reinforce) a particular worldview, they are rooted in the culture and era that created them,and they can be absurd at times. [1] Idiosyncratic folksonomic classification within a clique

can especially reinforce pre-existing viewpoints. Folksonomies are routinely generated bypeople who have spent a great deal of time interacting with the content they tag, and may

not properly identify the content's relationship to external items.

For example, items tagged as "Web 2.0" represent seemingly inconsistent and contradictory

resources.[5] The lack of a hierarchical or systematic structure for the tagging system makesthe terms relevant to what they are describing, but often fails to show their relevancy or

relationship to other objects of the same or similar type.

Origin

The term folksonomyis generally attributed to Thomas Vander Wal.[6][7] It is a portmanteauof the words folk (or folks) and taxonomy that specifically refers to subject indexing

systems created within Internet communities. Folksonomyhas little to do with taxonomythe latter refers to an ontological, hierarchical way of categorizing, while folksonomy

establishes categories (each tag is a category) that are theoretically "equal" to each other(i.e., there is no hierarchy, or parent-child relation between different tags).

Early attempts and experiments include the World Wide Web Consortium's Annotea projectwith user-generated tags in 2002.[8] According to Vander Wal, a folksonomy is "tagging that

works".

Folksonomy is unrelated to folk taxonomy, a cultural practice that has been widely

documented in anthropological and folkloristic work. Folk taxonomies are culturally supplied,intergenerationally transmitted, and relatively stable classification systems that people in a

given culture use to make sense of the entire world around them (not just the Internet).[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_siteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminological_controlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonymhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonymyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inaccurate_or_irrelevant_tags&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stemminghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-Smith2008-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Vander_Walhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteauhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_communityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortiumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annoteahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkloristicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_siteshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webloghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminological_controlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonymhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonymyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inaccurate_or_irrelevant_tags&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stemminghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflectionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-Smith2008-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Vander_Walhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteauhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_communityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontologicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortiumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annoteahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folkloristicshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-8


13/29

Folksonomy and the Semantic Web

Folksonomy may hold the key to developing a Semantic Web, in which every Web page

contains machine-readable metadata that describes its content.[10] Such metadata woulddramatically improve the precision (the percentage of relevant documents) in search engine

retrieval lists.[11] However, it is difficult to see how the large and varied community of Web

page authors could be persuaded to add metadata to their pages in a consistent, reliableway; web authors who wish to do so experience high entry costs because metadata systemsare time-consuming to learn and use.[12] For this reason, few Web authors make use of the

simple Dublin Core metadata standard, even though the use of Dublin Core meta- tags couldincrease their pages' prominence in search engine retrieval lists.[13] In contrast to more

formalized, top-down classifications using controlled vocabularies, folksonomy is a

distributed classification system with low entry costs.[14]

Enterprise

Since folksonomies are user-generated and therefore inexpensive to implement, advocates

of folksonomy believe that it provides a useful low-cost alternative to more traditional,

institutionally supported taxonomies or controlled vocabularies. An employee-generatedfolksonomy could therefore be seen as an "emergent enterprise taxonomy".[15] Somefolksonomy advocates believe that it is useful in facilitating workplace democracy and the

distribution ofmanagement tasks among people actually doing the work.

However, workplace democracy is a utopian concept at odds with the governing reality of

the enterprise, the majority of which exist and thrive as hierarchically-structuredcorporations not especially aligned to democratically informed governance and decision-

making. Also, as a distribution method, the folksonomy may, indeed, facilitate workflow, butit does not guarantee that the information worker will tag and, then, tag consistently, in an

unbiased way, and without intentional malice directed at the enterprise.

Folksonomy and top-down taxonomies

Commentators and information architects have contrasted the hierarchical approach of top-down taxonomies with the folksonomy approach. The former approach is prevalent and

represented by many practical examples.

One such example is Yahoo!, one of the earliest general directories for content on the Web.

Yahoo! and other similar sites organized and presented links under a fixed hierarchy. Thisapproach imposed one set of tags and one sort order, although hyperlinking enabled at

least a limited ability to traverse distant nodes in the hierarchy based on related subjectmatter. Clay Shirky is one commentator who has offered explanations for why this approach

is limited.[16]

Compromise with top-down taxonomies

The differences between taxonomies and folksonomies may have been overestimated.[17] Apossible solution to the shortcomings of folksonomies and controlled vocabulary is a

collabulary, which can be conceptualized as a compromise between the two: a team ofclassification experts collaborates with content consumers to create rich, but more

systematic content tagging systems. A collabulary arises much the way a folksonomy does,but it is developed in a spirit of collaboration with experts in the field. The result is a system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_enginehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Corehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-downhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_architecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlinkinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirkyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_vocabularieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Webhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_enginehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Corehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-12http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-downhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-13http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_vocabularyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_taxonomyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-14http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_architecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlinkinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shirkyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-15http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-16http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_vocabularies


14/29

that combines the benefits of folksonomieslow entry costs, a rich vocabulary that isbroadly shared and comprehensible by the user base, and the capacity to respond quickly to

language changewithout the errors that inevitably arise in naive, unsupervisedfolksonomies.

The ability to group tags, such as that provided by Delicious's "bundles",[18] provides one

way for taxonomists to work with an underlying folksonomy. This allows structure to beadded without the need for direct collaboration between classification experts and contentconsumers.

Another possible solution is a taxonomy-directed-folksonomy,[19] which relies on the user

interfaces to suggest tags from a formal taxonomy, but allows many users to use their own

tags.

Main problems of folksonomy tagging

Four main problems of folksonomy tagging are plurals, polysemy, synonymy, and depth(specificity) of tagging. Folksonomy-based systems can employ optional authority control of

subject keywords, place, personal, or corporate names and resource titles, by connectingthe system to established authority control files or controlled vocabularies using new

techniques. A folksonomy-based system needs a controlled vocabulary and a suggestion-based system.[20]

Software as a service

Software as a Service (SaaS, typically pronounced 'sass') is a model of softwaredeployment where an application is licensed for use as a service provided to customers on

demand. On demand licensing and use alleviates the customer's burden of equipping a

device with every application. It also reduces traditional End User Licensing Agreement(EULA) software maintenance, ongoing operation patches, and patch support complexity inan organization. On demand licensing enables software to become a variable expense,

rather than a fixed cost at the time of purchase. It also enables licensing only the amount ofsoftware needed versus traditional licenses per device. SaaS also enables the buyer to share

licenses across their organization and between organizations, to reduce the cost of acquiringEULAs for every device in their firm.

Using SaaS can also conceivably reduce the up-front expense of software purchases,through less costly, on-demand pricing from hosting service providers. SaaS lets software

vendors control and limit use, prohibits copies and distribution, and facilitates the control of

all derivative versions of their software. SaaS centralized control often allows the vendor orsupplier to establish an ongoing revenue stream with multiple businesses and users without

pre loading software in each device in an organization . The SaaS software vendor may hostthe application on its own web server, download the application to the consumer device and

disable it after use or after the on demand contract expires. The on demand function may

be handled internally to share licenses within a firm or by a third-party application serviceprovider (ASP) sharing licenses between firms. This sharing of end user licenses and on

demand use may also reduce investment in server hardware or the shift of server use toSaaS suppliers of applications file services.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_deploymenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_deploymenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-demandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_service_providerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_service_providerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-17http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomies#cite_note-19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_deploymenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_deploymenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-demandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_service_providerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_service_provider


15/29

History

The concept of "software as a service" started to circulate prior to 1999 and was consideredto be "gaining acceptance in the marketplace" in Bennett et al., 1999 paper on "Service

Based Software" [1].

Whilst the term "software as a service" was in common use, the CamelCase acronym "SaaS"was allegedly not coined until several years later in a white paper called "Strategic

Backgrounder: Software as a Service" [2] by the Software & Information Industry'seBusiness Division published in Feb. 2001, but written in fall of 2000 according to internal

Association records.

Philosophy

As a term, SaaS is generally associated with business software and is typically thought of asa low-cost way for businesses to obtain rights to use software as needed versus licensing all

devices with all applications. The on demand licensing enables the benefits of commerciallylicensed use without the associated complexity and potential high initial cost of equipping

every device with the applications that are only used when needed.

Virtually all software is well suited to the SaaS model. Many Unix applications already have

this functionality whereas EULA applications have never had this flexibility before SaaS. Alicensed copy of a word processor, for example, had to reside on the machine to create a

document. The equipped program has no intrinsic value loaded on a computer that is turnedoff for the night. Worse yet, the same employee may need another fully paid license to write

or edit a report at home on their own computer, while the work license is inoperable.Remote administration software attempts to resolve this issue through sharing CPU controls

instead of licensing on demand. While promising, it requires leaving the licensed hostcomputer on and it creates security issues from the remote accessing to run an application.

SaaS achieves efficiencies by enabling the on demand licensing and management of theinformation and output, independent of the hardware location.

Other application areas such as Customer relationship management (CRM), videoconferencing, human resources, IT service management, accounting, IT security, web

analytics, web content management and e-mail are some of the initial markets showingSaaS success. The distinction between SaaS and earlier applications delivered over the

Internet is that SaaS solutions were developed specifically to leverage web technologiessuch as the browser, thereby making them web-native. The data design and architecture of

SaaS applications are specifically built with a 'multi-tenant' backend, thus enabling multiple

customers or users to access a shared data model. This further differentiates SaaS fromclient/server or 'ASP' (Application Service Provider) solutions in that SaaS providers are

leveraging enormous economies of scale in the deployment, management, support andthrough the Software Development Lifecycle.

Key characteristics

The key characteristics of SaaS software, according to IDC, include:[3][dead link]

network-based access to, and management of, commercially available software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CamelCasehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_administrationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_conferencinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_conferencinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_resourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_service_managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_securityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_analyticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_analyticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_content_management_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mailhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitenancyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Data_Corporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service#cite_note-IDC-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dead_external_linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dead_external_linkshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service#cite_note-0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CamelCasehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_administrationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_relationship_managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_conferencinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_conferencinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_resourceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_service_managementhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accountinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_securityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_analyticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_analyticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_content_management_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mailhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitenancyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Data_Corporationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service#cite_note-IDC-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dead_external_links


16/29

activities that are managed from central locations rather than at each customer's

site, enabling customers to access applications remotely via the Web

application delivery that typically is closer to a one-to-many model (single instance,multi-tenant architecture) than to a one-to-one model, including architecture,

pricing, partnering, and management characteristics

centralized feature updating, which obviates the need for downloadable patches and

upgrades. SaaS is often used in a larger network of communicating software - either as part of

a mashup or as a plugin to a platform as a service. Service oriented architecture is

naturally more complex than traditional models of software deployment.

SaaS applications are generally priced on a per-user basis, sometimes with a relativelysmall minimum number of users and often with additional fees for extra bandwidth and

storage. SaaS revenue streams to the vendor are therefore lower initially than traditionalsoftware license fees, but are also recurring, and therefore viewed as more predictable,

much like maintenance fees for licensed software.

In addition to the characteristics mentioned above, SaaS software turns the tragedy of the

commons on its head and frequently has these additional benefits:

More feature requests from users since there is frequently no marginal cost forrequesting new features;

Faster releases of new features since the entire community of users benefits from

new functionality; and

The embodiment of recognized best practices since the community of users drives

the software publisher to support the best practice.

Implementation

According to Microsoft, SaaS architectures generally can be classified as belonging to one of

four "maturity levels," whose key attributes are configurability, multi-tenant efficiency, andscalability.[4] Each level is distinguished from the previous one by the addition of one of

those three attributes:

Level 1 - Ad-Hoc/Custom: At the first level of maturity, each customer has its owncustomized version of the hosted application and runs its own instance of the

application on the host's servers. Migrating a traditional non-networked or client-server application to this level of SaaS typically requires the least development effort

and reduces operating costs by consolidating server hardware and administration.

Level 2 - Configurable: The second maturity level provides greater program flexibilitythrough configurable metadata, so that many customers can use separate instances

of the same application code. This allows the vendor to meet the different needs of

each customer through detailed configuration options, while simplifying maintenanceand updating of a common code base.

Level 3 - Configurable, Multi-Tenant-Efficient: The third maturity level adds multi-tenancy to the second level, so that a single program instance serves all customers.

This approach enables more efficient use of server resources without any apparentdifference to the end user, but ultimately is limited in its scalability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWWhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitenanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_(web_application_hybrid)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_as_a_servicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_oriented_architecturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsofthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configurabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-tenanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service#cite_note-Microsoft-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-serverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-serverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_basehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWWhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitenanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_(web_application_hybrid)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_as_a_servicehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_oriented_architecturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsofthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configurabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-tenanthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_as_a_service#cite_note-Microsoft-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-serverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client-serverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_base


17/29

Level 4 - Scalable, Configurable, Multi-Tenant-Efficient: At the fourth and final SaaS

maturity level, scalability is added through a multitier architecture supporting a load-balanced farm of identical application instances, running on a variable number of

servers. The system's capacity can be increased or decreased to match demand byadding or removing servers, without the need for any further alteration of application

software architecture.

Virtualization also may be used in SaaS architectures, either in addition to multi-tenancy, or

in place of it.[5] One of the principal benefits of virtualization is that it can increase thesystem's capacity without additional programming. On the other hand, a considerable

amount of programming may be required to construct a more efficient, multi-tenantapplication. Combining multi-tenancy and virtualization provides still greater flexibility to

tune the system for optimal performance.[6] In addition to full operating system-levelvirtualization, other virtualization techniques applied to SaaS include application

virtualization and virtual appliances.

Various types of software components and frameworks may be employed in the

development of SaaS applications. These tools can reduce the time to market and cost of

converting a traditional on-premise software product or building and deploying a new SaaSsolution. Examples include components for subscription management, grid computingsoftware, web application frameworks, and complete SaaS platform products.[7]

SaaS and SOA

Much like any other software, Software as a Service can also take advantage of Service

Oriented Architecture to enable software applications to communicate with each other. Eachsoftware service can act as a Service provider, exposing its functionality to other

applications via public brokers, and can also act as a Service requester, incorporating dataand functionality from other services.

Data and Web 2.0

Blogging and the Wisdom of Crowds

One of the most highly touted features of the Web 2.0 era is the rise of blogging. Personal

home pages have been around since the early days of the web, and the personal diary anddaily opinion column around much longer than that, so just what is the fuss all about?

At its most basic, a blog is just a personal home page in diary format. But as Rich Skrenta

notes, the chronological organization of a blog "seems like a trivial difference, but it drivesan entirely different delivery, advertising and value chain."

One of the things that has made a difference is a technology called RSS. RSS is the mostsignificant advance in the fundamental architecture of the web since early hackers realized

that CGI could be used to create database-backed websites. RSS allows someone to link not just to a page, but to subscribe to it, with notification every time that page changes.

Skrenta calls this "the incremental web." Others call it the "live web".

Now, of course, "dynamic websites" (i.e., database-backed sites with dynamically generated

content) replaced static web pages well over ten years ago. What's dynamic about the liveweb are not just the pages, but the links. A link to a weblog is expected to point to a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitier_architecturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_balancing_(computing)http://en.wikipedia.org/

introduction notes - detailed

Documents