Module 2
2.0 - An Overview
A trademarked misnomer?
There has been some discussion of the term "Web 2.0" itself. It appears to have been used some time before O'Reilly "coined" the term. But there seems to be an even more lively discussion and stronger feelings (even aside from the inevitable trolling which has been around since The Well) on the actual meaning of the term than there is over the service marking of it. At first glance the term seems to suggest an upgraded, next version of the Internet or at least the Word Wide Web itself. However, such is not the case. What then is Web 2.0?
This module covers:
- definition
- principles overview
Note: This module contains links to quite a bit of reading. Please do not feel obligated to read all the material. Please do at least skim the articles lightly and do as much thorough reading as you feel you need to get a handle on what the term Web 2.0 means to different people.
Definition
In this course, since the definition of Web 2.0 is currently evolving, rather than attempt to restrict
our definition (and therefore coverage of the subject) we will
recognize the indistinct nature of the concept of 2.0 and simply
attempt to provide decent coverage of ideas that appear to be popular
in attempting to produce a definition or that tend to surface when the term is used.
Having discussed what has been retroactively labeled "Web 1.0", or
the Internet as it has traditionally existed and functioned we need to
look at how the Internet has changed in recent times. We've looked at
hardware, software, infrastructure, and protocols that make up the Net.
The "2.0" part of Web 2.0 implies versioning of the Net. It may seem
like 2.0 is a new and different Internet. It should be made abundantly
clear at this point that 2.0 is not a new or separate Internet, but
rather a revolution of thinking and usage. The typical 1.0 user
experience consists of individual users making atomic requests to web
servers for resources. 2.0 focuses on the Internet not only as a way to
connect users with resources, but as a platform. Additionally, 2.0
focuses on participation, services, and social constructions. Since the
definition of 2.0 is itself a social construction, let's look at what
the wired, wiki-editing world has to say:
Read the header section and the Defining Web 2.0 section of the Wikipedia article Web 2.0
. If you're not familiar with wikipedia, be aware that clicking links
in the article will take you to a wikipedia article on that subject.
Feel free to use these internal links to get further background
information on any terms you are unfamiliar with.
As a side note and example of the communal, participatory, dynamic
nature of wikis, since creating this particular web page two days ago,
the title of the section I've referenced above has changed from Introduction to Web 2.0 to Defining Web 2.0.
It's possible although unlikely that tomorrow the section may not
exist, or the article itself may be merged with another article. Such
is the nature of wikis.
Now lets take a look at what O'Reilly Media - originator of the term - said in 2005 about Web 2.0.
As you read, pay attention to the intertwined nature of Web 2.0 and
e-business. The article does a good job of demonstrating the nature of
2.0 by contrasting the business paradigms of 1.0 and 2.0.
Later, Tim O'Reilly wrote a bit more about the idea. The comments are especially insightful; don't miss them.
And one more:
Read (or skim) Paul Graham's take on 2.0 (he attended the original Web 2.0 conference).
From these articles we can see that what O'Reilly originally had in
mind when they coined the term was a description of a way of thinking.
However, there is an associated element of much of what are considered
Web 2.0 applications that often takes on the term Web 2.0 itself: the
visual aspect. The Wikipedia article, under the section titled (as of
the writing of this module) Characteristics of "Web 2.0" mentions
"Enhanced graphical interfaces such as gradients and rounded corners
(absent in the so-called Web 1.0 era)" as a frequent attribute present
in 2.0 applications. The principles of 2.0 as described by O'Reilly and
others will be discussed in the following modules. Since the visual
enhancement typical of 2.0 is essentially aesthetic and incidental, we
will not discuss it much in this course other than to point it out here
and direct you to simply be aware of it as you look through the
examples given later in the course. Although enhanced look and feel of websites is not an expansion of functionality, it does represent an evolution of thought, and therefore it does fit in with the overall theme of 2.0.
Outline
- Origin of term
- Validity of term
- not an upgrade of infrastructure or standards
- semantics
- social construction, ideas popularly associated with the term
- non-standard meaning, gravitational core rather than a containing box
- A way of thinking
- A higher level approach to functionality, usage, and business models
- A significant change in web usage and business models
- weblogs & the blogosphere vs traditional media
- social bookmarking
- wikis
- podcasts
- RSS feeds
- permalinks
- social software
- exposed web APIs vs proprietary APIs
- webservices
- Discuss information/functionality silos vs openness
- Discuss changes in organization, categorization, referencing (deep linking/granular access)
