Web 2.0 Technology

1. Web 2.0 Technology Xunyu Pan CSI-668 Presentation 04/24/08

2. Introduction • Web 2.0 is the second generation of World Wide Web that is focused on the ability for people to collaborate and share information online. • It’s also called as Democratic web because it takes the control of the creation and distribution of content away from centralized corporations and gives the control directly to individuals. • Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but to changes in the ways software developers and end-users use webs.

3. Introduction (Cont.) • Technologies such as weblogs (blogs), wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds, social software, and web application programming interfaces (APIs) provide enhancements over read-only websites. • Social software are web-based software programs.The programs allow users to interact and share data with other users. This computer-mediated communication has become very popular with social sites like MySpace and Facebook, media sites like Flickr and YouTube, and commercial sites like Amazon and eBay

4. Introduction (Cont.) • In Web 2.0, people with no specialized programming knowledge can now create their own websites to self-publish, create and upload audio and video files, share photos and information and complete a variety of other tasks. • In this new world, the internet becomes a platform for self-expression, education and advocacy that "regular people" can use on their own without having to go to an expert to do it for them.

5. History • The term “Web 2.0” was created by Tim O'Reilly on first O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004. • According to Tim O'Reilly: • Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; • Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: • delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it; • consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others; • creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.”

6. Evolution of Internet • Phase 1: The Creation ("Web") • In the early mid `90s, with the creation of Netscape Corporation, the idea of making network collaboration accessible to the broadest audience possible attained tremendous visibility and support from the market, leading to the proliferation of a new client application allowing unfettered access to network information: The Internet browser

7. Evolution of Internet (cont.) • Phase 2: The Development ("Web 1.0") • The exponential growth in popularity of this new medium led established and new software companies to realize the great potential of this new market. On May 26, 1995, Microsoft, in a famous Bill Gates memo ("The Internet Tidal Wave"), reoriented itself towards this new model. • Although the over-excitement created an inflated market that eventually burst, many content and service companies such as Yahoo!, Amazon, and eBay have remained strong and growing. The popularity of this new paradigm, coupled with the commoditization of the Browser on many devices, has put Internet in almost everybody’s hands. This phase could be seen as the popularization of Internet access.

8. Evolution of Internet (cont.) • Phase 3: The Reinvigoration ("Web 2.0") • Lately, infrastructure commoditization and the flamboyant success of new Internet companies, such as Google, have reinvigorated the drive for Internet innovation. There are two new fundamentals from the previous eras: • First, the industry is now focusing on popularizing content publishing. New services like Blog (e.g. Six Apart), Wiki (e.g. Wikipedia), Photo Album (e.g. Flickr), Social Network (e.g. Linked In), and many others are based on the principle of enabling every users to become content producers as well as content consumers. This "2 Way" web is already having important social ramifications, where knowledge and information are becoming more and more open and accessible. • Second, most of the Internet organizations are placing more emphasis on usage than subscribers. This is a great step towards building a stronger Internet in which closed Internet services, such as today’s Instant Messaging networks, will hopefully be pushed out of this ecosystem.

9. Evolution of Internet (cont.)

10. Difference Between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0

11. Difference Between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0

12. History of Web 2.0

13. Principles of web 2.0 The seven principles of web 2.0 defined by Tim O'Reilly:

14. Principles of web 2.0 (cont.) • 1. Harnessing Collective Intelligence • It’s the main principle or the first principle of web 2.0. The foundations of the web introduced the ability to hyperlink to almost anything. The community is empowered to bring content together in the form of links and user driven content, so that we move away from a model of the site driving the content, but the internet community deciding what is relevant and what isn’t.

15. Principles of web 2.0 (cont.) • 2. The Web As Platform • We often think of the Desktop as the platform, or the server as the platform, sometimes the Enterprise Infrastructure as the platform. Web as the Platform tries to extend that to the fabric of the web. Web 2.0 sites are no longer bound by what is within the constraints of their ‘domain’.

16. Principles of web 2.0 (cont.) • 3. Data is the Next Intel Inside • Database management is a core competency of Web 2.0 companies. All the major Web 2.0 sites have a heavy reliance on managing the data that drives the site. • The race is on to own certain classes of core data: location, identity, calendaring of public events, product identifiers and namespaces. • In many cases, where there is significant cost to create the data, there may be an opportunity for an Intel Inside style play, with a single source for the data. • In others, the winner will be the company that first reaches critical mass via user aggregation, and turns that aggregated data into a system service.

17. Principles of web 2.0 (cont.) • 4. End of the Software Release Cycle • This pertains to 'Software as a service'. Software as a 'product' can never keep up to date with all the changing information. • In the web 2.0 sense, we are dealing with code as well as data - so the service concept keeps the data relevant by accessing as many sources as possible. Users are treated as co-developers and the development is based on the feedback loop from the user. (Google is the master of this – the “Beta” release that doesn’t go away)

18. Principles of web 2.0 (cont.) • 5. Lightweight Programming Models • By using lightweight programming models one can reach many more people hence sources of information which enable data collection and a more intelligent web. • It also lend themselves to some key advantages as loosely coupling of systems, syndicating data outwards instead of controlling it.

19. Principles of web 2.0 (cont.) • 6. Software Above the Level of a Single Device • More devices to capture information and better flow of information between these devices leads to a higher degree of collective intelligence. • It means software is no longer limited to the PC platform. But the advent of mobile devices line PDAs and phones that are getting smarter and more sophisticated, users are expecting a similar experience across platforms using web 2.0.

20. Principles of web 2.0 (cont.) • 7. Rich User Experiences • A rich user experience is necessary to enable better web applications leading to more web usage and better information flow on the web - leading to a more 'Intelligent' web.

22. Characteristics of Web 2.0 • 1. Decentralized publication • It is also called the "Democratic" web because it takes the control of the creation and distribution of content away from centralized corporations or agencies and places that control directly in the hands of individuals. In other words it means "By the people, for the people, between the people.“ • 2. Distributed construction • Collaboration between people across time and place is more difficult than between collaboration individuals in the same room. Distributed construction is one of the characteristics of Web 2.0 and is the real power of the network technologies.

23. Characteristics of Web 2.0 (cont.) • 3. The Read/Write Web • The Web is seen as a two-way medium, where people are both readers and writers. The main catalyst for this is social software, allowing communication and collaboration between two or more people. • 4. The Web as Platform • The Web is seen as a programming platform upon which developers create software applications.

24. Characteristics of Web 2.0 (cont.) • 5. Asynchronous Javascript and XML to create rich user interfaces, typically referred to as AJAX or AFLAX. • Programmers are leveraging javascript’s and flash’s ability to make calls back to a server without the user reloading a web page to radically change the user experience of web applications. AJAX and AFLAX enable a browser-based application to behave much like standard desktop applications, making it easier to leverage the web as a platform, and deliver fuller-featured software as a web service. • 6. Constant improvement generated by users. • Network effects are encouraged; the more people who contribute, the better is the output of content. • 7. Ease of use • Can be used easily from anywhere over the internet.

25. Applications of Web 2.0 • Wikipedia, Google Maps, Digg, Flickr, YouTube, Yellowikis, Myspace, Frappr, inetWord, Web 2.0 Mashup Matrix, DropCash, Meebo, HousingMaps, Technorati etc…

26. New Trend of Web 2.0 • International World Wide Web Conference Committee (IW3C2) 2007 • Mashing up Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web by Anupriya Ankolekar, Markus Krötzsch, Thanh Tran, Denny Vrandecic

27. Basic Ideas • The Semantic Web (Proposed by Tim Berners-Lee in 1998) is an evolving extension of the World Wide Web in which the semantics of information and services on the web is defined, making it possible for the web to understand and satisfy the requests of people and machines to use the web content. Some defined specifications include: Resource Description Framework (RDF), Web Ontology Language (OWL) etc. • A common perception is that there are two competing visions for the future evolution of the Web: the Semantic Web and Web 2.0. • However these two approaches are complementary and that each field can and must draw from the other’s strengths.

28. Basic Ideas • Future web applications will retain the Web 2.0 focus on community and usability, while drawing on Semantic Web infrastructure to facilitate mashup-like information sharing. • The Semantic Web can learn from Web 2.0’s focus on community and interactivity, while Web 2.0 can draw from the Semantic Web’s rich technical infrastructure for exchanging information across application boundaries.

29. Scenario of the Technologies Combination • The paper gives concrete scenario of how Semantic Web technologies could enhance current Web 2.0 tools and experience. • Take blogging as a typical example of a web application that is widely used, in particular for posting opinions and links to other content on the Web. • This makes it fertile ground to explore the possibilities of extensive data integration and reuse enabled by the Semantic Web.

30. A Scenario • Let’s consider Chrissie, who has been blogging for three years. Chrissie is a fairly typical Web blogger, having some basic skill in HTML and CSS. Her blog offers an RSS feed, but this is automatically provided by the blogging application itself. She does not know how an RSS feed is written, although she can subscribe to RSS feeds • Chrissie goes to the cinema regularly and tend to blog afterwards about the movies she watched. Her audience is fairly small, mostly friends and acquaintances, and some people who might accidentally stumble upon her movie reviews. • She follows a straightforward workflow when writing reviews on her blog. Just as for any other blog entry, she creates a new entry, enters a title, writes the text, and maybe tags it with one or more tags, e.g. describing the genre of the movie. After pushing the publish button, the entry is saved in her blog database. The blog publishing system then takes care of displaying the entry on the front page of her blog and archiving the entry appropriately. Furthermore, the RSS feed will be updated with the entry, so that subscribed feed readers can get the new entry. • It’s a typical web 2.0 model. Now we add some semantic web plug-in. Let’s call it Smoov.

31. 1. Reusing Data From the Web • Chrissie’s workflow for writing movie reviews now changes slightly. To begin with, Chrissie has to explicitly state that she is writing a movie review. • This causes a number of extra fields to appear in her blogging application. The first field asks her to identify the movie. She can specify the exact title of the movie or search for movies by entering the actors, the director etc. Other methods of identifying movies could use, e.g., a few selected authoritative sources such as the IMDb page or the Wikipedia article of the movie. • Now that Chrissie has identified the movie, Smoov pulls in some data about the movie and creates a movie sidebar. Chrissie configured the sidebar to show specific information about movies, such as the director, the major actors, running time, production company, release year, but also the URL of a poster or some distinctive pictures from the movie, and a link to the official Web site of the movie.

32. 1. Reusing Data From the Web (cont.)

33. 1. Reusing Data From the Web (cont.) • The movie data pulled in by Chrissie’s blog is available on a central space in a machine-readable format. This could be a semantically enhanced Wikipedia or a semantically enhanced IMDb. There are already mature technologies available and it is only a matter of time before such a data source becomes reality. • The movie information that Chrissie draws from may be static data, for instance the director and the actors of the movie. Such information can be pulled into the sidebar once and will basically remain unchanged afterwards. • Other displayed information may be semi-static, such as the awards received by the movie, or dynamic, such as the availability of tickets for that movie in local cinemas.

34. 2. Dynamic Data Sources • If Chrissie were to configure Smoov with a (URL) list of her favourite cinemas, the plug-in could locate additional dynamic information, such as the movies currently playing at the cinemas. Such a service could be offered by city guide sites. • Once the movie stops running in the cinemas, Smoov would simply stop displaying the movie showtimes. • Once the DVD of the movie is out, as reported by IMDb, the plug-in could link to Chrissie’s favourite movie stores and online rental services, as configured by her, and display the prices of the movie.

35. 3. Personalization of Web Sites • Readers of Chrissie’s blog, who do not live geographically close to Chrissie, may not care too much about information on movie showtimes in Chrissie’s favorite cinema. • On the other hand, what if Chrissie’s blog could display movie showtimes for their favorite cinemas?

36. 3. Personalization of Web Sites (cont.) • Smoov could try to guess the location of the reader, based on his/her IP. (Smoov might just guess wrong or determine a location that is too generic to be useful.) • If Chrissie’s blog offers user registration, it could allow her to set up preferences like favourite movie genres and location, and either store a cookie or require an explicit login. (it requires Chrissie’s blog application to handle user accounts, and users to create and remember an account as well as potentially replicate the same information on several websites. It also prevents serendipitous usage of data, since readers always have to register before getting the advantage of context-aware data reuse.) • The ideal solution would allows Smoov to use information about the reader encoded in open Web standards. Infrastructure can use an extension of the HTTP GET command in order to send a reference to the reader’s FOAF file. This FOAF file would include data about the location or even the favorite cinema of the reader and can thus be immediately reused for displaying highly personalized information. • Using these extensions does not impose any further costs on Chrissie, but still reap immediate benefits – for Chrissie and the readers of her blog – leading to a highly personalized Web experience. If Smoov cannot figure out anything about who is reading the blog, it defaults to Chrissie’s preferences.

37. 4. Giving Back to The Web • Chrissie and her blog readers clearly benefit from Smoov’s Web data integration, reuse, and personalization capabilities. • On the other hand, If Smoov would export Chrissie’s movie ratings to the Semantic Web, her rating and review text would represent a contribution to the Web.

38. Conclusions • Web sites can then benefit from collecting the review data from many different, heterogeneous sources like Chrissie’s blog. They can display aggregated reviews, and look out for trends. • The Web 2.0 based Semantic Web structure is built on a decentralized and open infrastructures that can facilitate data interoperability by means of standardized taxonomies and ontologies. Such common vocabularies make it easier to unlock and share the data between different Web pages. • There is a great potential for having all sides participate in an open data Web( Web 2.0 ), and having intelligent services present and adapt data to the users (Semantic Web).

39. Refernces • Anupriya Ankolekar, Markus Krötzsch, Thanh Tran, Denny Vrandecic. The Two Cultures - Mashing up Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web, Proc. International World Wide Web Conference 2007 (IW3C07), May 8–12, 2007, Banff, Alberta, Canada. • A. Ankolekar and D. Vrandecic. Personalizing Websurfing with semantically enriched peronal profiles. In M. Bouzid and N. Henze, editors, Proc. Semantic Web Personalization Workshop, Budva, Montenegro, June 2006. • M. Arenas, J. A. Perez, and C. Gutierrez. Semantics and complexity of sparql. In I. Cruz and S. Decker, editors, Proc. 5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC06), pages 30–43, Athens, GA, USA, 2006. • Shilpa Nayak. Web 2.0 Independent study on web 2.0, SUNY-Albany, August 2007.

40. Thank you!