Help page on the disambiguation Not to be confused with Internet2.
Sensitive mapping of Web 2.0
The term “Web 2.0” refers to all the techniques, features and uses of the World Wide Web that followed the original form of the web1. It relates in particular interfaces allowing users with little technical knowledge to appropriate new features of the web. Internet users can firstly contribute to the exchange of information and interact (share, exchange, etc.) in a simple way, both in content and structure of the pages, and also them including creating the social2 Web. The user is using the tools at its disposal, an active person on the canvas.
Web 2.0 is the evolution of the Web to interactivity through an internal complexity of the technology, but for simplicity of use, technical and computer skills are not essential for the users.
The term “Web 2.0” used by Dale Dougherty (en) in 2003, broadcast by Tim O’Reilly in 2004 and consolidated in 2005 with the position paper “What Is Web 2.0” 3 has emerged from 2007 .
1.1 Origin of the term
2.1 rich Internet application
2.4 Social Tagging, folksonomy
Web 2.5 Protocols
3 Economic Issues
4 term Critic
4.1 Technological content
4.2 A term especially marketing
4.3 Use of a false computer dial
4.4 Pre-Existence of technologies
5 Enlargement of terminology
5.1 Numbers versions
5.2 Using the 2.0
7 See also
7.1 Related Articles
7.2 External Links
Web 2.0 facilitates interaction between users, crowdsourcing and creating rudimentary social networks that can serve content and exploiting network effects, with or without actual visual rendering and interactive web pages. In this sense, websites act more like 2.0 points of presence, or web portals user-centric rather than traditional websites. The evolution of the media to refer to the websites, their different formats, bring in 2008 focused approach on content rather than on appearance.
The new Web 2.0 templates (in English: template) are trying to bring a chart carefully, effects, remaining compatible with this diversity of media. In Web 2.0, the Internet becomes an actor feeding sites content, such as blogs or collaboratively with wikis and even rigorous type devices citizen science.
2.0 websites allow users to do more than remove the information. By increasing what was already possible with Web 1.0, they provide users with new interfaces and new computer software. Users can now provide information to Web 2.0 sites and have control over some of them.
Origin of the term
The phrase was publicized in August 2004 by Dale Dougherty (in) the company O’Reilly Media during a conversation with Craig Cline of MediaLive (in) to prepare a conference. He suggested that the Web was a period of rebirth or transformation, with a change of paradigms and changing business models. Dougherty gave examples rather than definitions: “DoubleClick was Web 1.0. Google AdSense is Web 2.0. Ofoto (in), it was Web 1.0. Flickr is Web 2.0. “And recruited John Battelle (en). Then, O’Reilly Media, Battelle, and MediaLive launched the first Web 2.0 conference in October 2004. The second annual conference was held in October 2005.
O’Reilly and Battelle-résument4 as follows the key principles of Web 2.0 applications:
the Web as a platform;
data as “implicit knowledge”;
network effects driven by an “architecture of participation” innovation as the assembly of systems and distributed and independent sites;
weight business models pen through syndication of content and services;
the end of the software adoption cycle (“the perpetual beta”).
The infrastructure of Web 2.0 is complex and evolving nature, but it always includes:
various client applications (plugins, or grafts, non-standard are generally avoided).
These complementary approaches provide Web 2.0 storage capacities, creation and dissemination, as well as serendipity much higher than what was previously expected websites.
A site could be considered as falling within a web 2.0 approach it in a privileged way uses the following techniques:
CSS, semantically valid XHTML markup and microformats;
Technical rich applications such as Ajax;
content aggregation and syndication RSS / Atom;
appropriate use of the URL;
REST and XML web services.
Web 2.0 is defined by its content, the move towards Web 2.0 has nothing to do with the evolution of communication standards such as the transition to IPv6.
Rich Internet application
Main article: Rich Internet Application.
Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, rich Internet application techniques such as AJAX have improved the user experience of applications using a web browser. A web application using AJAX can exchange information between the client and the server to update the content of a web page without refreshing the entire page using the browser. “Web Geospatial” 5 is one of the emerging forms of geographical reorganization of inputs of knowledge through ICT, democratization GPS and sometimes crowdsourcing applied to the citizen mapping (mapping6 citizen), who gave such OpenStreetMap and other scales NASA World Wind and Google Earth and Microsoft Live Local 3D by having environmental, social and economic cernés7 poorly.
Main article: RSS.
The first important move towards Web 2.0 was content syndication, using standardized protocols that allow users to make use of data from a site in another context, from another web site with a browser plugin , or even a separate desktop application. These protocols include RSS, RDF (as in RSS 1.1) and Atom. All are based on the XML language. Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend the functionality of the sites and allow users to interact in a decentralized manner. See microformats for more specialized data formats.
This bottom-up trend that many of these protocols become de facto standards rather than standards.
Main article: Keyword.
Tags or labels or keywords improve semantic search, more heuristic and therefore presented in the form of a cloud of keywords in English: Tag cloud.
These labels are small text phrases that describe a concept, are attached to a concept and used to search content (typical examples: a forum, a blog, a blog directory) and, more importantly, interconnect things together. A bit like in a neural network: a label is used, the more the concept attached to the label is present and the longer it takes weight. More labels are present together and attached concepts are interconnected.
The “markers” can include Meta elements (metadata elements).
Social tagging, folksonomy
Main article: Folksonomy.
Labelling allows pre and hierarchical sorting of items sought. The order of the items is either the number of references or a “satisfaction rating” provided by readers. In the latter case, the weighting system is defined by a human factor (the social side) which highlights data or interesting articles in the mass of information. This is typically the case in English blog directories: Social Bookmarking.
Web communication protocols are a key component of Web 2.0 infrastructure. Two main approaches;
REST (Representational State Transfer) indicates a way to exchange and manipulate data by simply using HTTP verbs GET, POST, PUT and DELETE.
SOAP, which involves posting an XML query server comprising a sequence of instructions to execute.
In both cases, access to services are defined by an application programming interface (API). Often, the interface is specific to the server. However, standard web programming interfaces (for example, to post on a blog) emerge. Most, but not all, communications with web services involve a transaction as XML (eXtensible Markup Language).
See also WSDL (Web Services Description Language), a publication of standard web services interfaces.
After the gains of the new economy, Web 2.0 has enabled the rapid enrichment of a few companies, as was the case during the first broadcast of the Web. And the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, became a billionaire at age 23.
However, some [who?] Were concerned the risk of developing a “bubble 2.0” similar to the first internet bubble. The Techcrunch blog, the first blog of the list A8 even made an article announcing the death of Web 2.0, the tombstone says “2004-2008” 9 (which is also a valuable reference in the difficult year of dating the birth of the Web 2.0). But contrary to what took place for the first Internet bubble, this time the internet activities are not behind the 2008 crisis.
Criticism of the term
Unlike terms like HTML 4.01, indicating a specific technology, or Internet2 (with which it should not be confused and designating a consortium), Web 2.0 has no precise definition by consensus.
The changes he designates not the result of a consultation of the World Wide Web Consortium. Accordingly, interactivity is made by superimposing many layers, so that were abandoned high-level languages that would have enabled a richer web. Some computer regret this anarchy resulting in poor performance.
Benjamin Bayart denounced the fact that the content of Web 2.0 is more centralized by institutions than is possible Internet . Ultimately, it is more of a network spider (web), but star. Derisively, he proposed to call “Minitel 2.0” what the media call web 2011.
Especially a marketing term
The journalists were taken aback by the term “web 2.0” before using their mêmes. They note that many players were Web 2.0 as Monsieur Jourdain spoke prosel before the marketing does not impose this term. This makes the term a buzzword often used improperly.
In summary, the eyes of the computer, the term “Web 2.0” would be at best a generic term for a set of further developments regarding the uses techniques (thus being more of a sociology of computers).
Using a fake computer dial
The “.0” evokes the software version numbers; but the new software versions are announced clearly, which distinguishes them from previous ones, so that the existence of Web 2.0 is an observation post. While terms like “participatory Web” clearly identify a use, the use of a number can evoke a standard (which is not the case at all, as opposed, for example, or IPv6 Internet2 – especially the web 2.0 is not from a recommendation of the World Wide Web Consortium).
The “.0” can give an accurate impression of the release, while on the contrary that means the web 2.0 is still quite vague, different experts do not always agree on the classification of a service.
Another criticism is that attributed to the new “Web 2.0” are based on technologies and concepts of “web 1.0”. Thus, examples of Web 2.0 services (see above) are entirely contained in the original web.
The term Web 2.0 has led to the use of web 1.0 and web 1.5 rétronymes to refer to previous methods the web. According to the definitions used, an Internet forum is classified as Generation 1.5 or 2.0. However, not only the forums have existed in the early days of the web, usenet, but existed before the web.
Many of the ideas of Web 2.0 have been used on well before the term websites are used. Amazon.com, for example, allowed users to write reviews and since its inception consumer guides, and opened its API to third party developers in 2002. Conversely, when a site proclaims “Web 2.0” because that it uses trivial features such as blogs or degraded, it is often more of an attempt to promote a true exploitation of the ideas of Web 2.0.
There are a few examples still stronger than the Amazon, the content generated by users is only peripheral to the site content:
the Dmoz directory, launched in 1998, the entire content is generated by users.
news agency Indymedia operates in open publishing since its creation in 1999.
Enlargement of the terminology
After the appearance of the term “Web 2.0”, a nomenclature appeared to describe the present, the past and the future of the Web. Uses presented here are not necessarily the only ones. In addition, for certain numbers uses are very rare (e.g. Web 2.1).
Numbers existing versions
Details Name Status
Already deployed Web 0.0 ironic expression meaning the development phase preceding the actual existence of Web14, the fact that some people do not have Internet.15 or an announcement effect without contenu16.
Web 0.5 joking term used to describe a website using outdated methods, or internet services deployed without really ripe (especially Web by Mobile17 telephony).
Web Static Web 1.0
Web 1.5 dynamic Web
Web participatory Web 2.0, social and collective intelligence. Concept proposed by Tim O’Reilly in 20053.
Web 2.1 Web 2.0 made it easier to accès18,19; expression is mostly a reflection on improvements to Web 2.0 in the near future.
Web 2.5 For some, means the Web turned into a platform for applications ligne20. Also used by the company for its Expression Criteo smart filtering method contenu21 (Web 2.0 being seen as the contribution of content without discrimination of participants).
Web-oriented Web 2.0 2.B for trade; see also business and marketing 2.0 2.0
Ongoing development Web² (Squared) The Web as an information ecosystem. Concept proposed by Tim O’Reilly (and John Battelle) 22 as an intermediate step between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0. The choice of “²” (square) means that the web development must be seen as a constant acceleration, not a linear phenomenon. General circulation “Squared” even français23.
Web 3.0 expression meaning the next major evolution of the Web. Expected as the sémantique24 Web or Web data; others think it will be the Web3D. Finally in 2011 Web.3.0 also means the P2P Web from one computer to another without server (25) (26).
Web3d 3D websites; supported by the Web3D Consortium
Web 4.0 For Nova Spivack, Radar Networks boss, means the WebOS, the ability to work with tools only ligne27.
For Joël de Rosnay and Seth Godin28,29, means the symbiotic web, used continuously; without challenging the relevance of this division, Olivier Ertzscheid think that Web 4.0 will precede the 3030 Web.
Bloggers humorously published articles on what they believe the Web n.031 or use as the name of site32, or simply to mock ads improvements from one version to the other quite identiques33. A start-up announced in a press release parody his “discovery” of the Web 5034. The organizers of a conference on Web 3.0 in April 2007 notaient that search engines were at that time many answers even for the term “Web 9.0.” 35
Nicholas Carr imagined for its part the evolution of Web 1.0 to Web 5.0 by making the progression towards a world-technologique36 against utopia.
In a drawing satirizing Web 2.01, François showed Cointe offering Google Web infty.0 (of course the “.0” is not used with the symbol of infinity); on the same drawing, a pipe bore the inscription “Web 2.0”, and he went a 2.0 bubble.
Symmetrically, below 1 numbers are used to discuss the development of the Web. Thus in the MIT thesis, the term “Web 0.2” is used to designate the first sites, and “Web .9” for dating sites just before the onset of numérique37 economy.
Using the 2.0
The use of the “.0” was widely used by allusion. In particular, there is the suffix “2.0” attached to any XXX concept. In most cases, the concept XXX 2.0 does not necessarily mean a “major update” (the greatest transformation since its creation, since we are at number 2) XXX concept but use of web 2.0 part of the XXX concept. A non-exhaustive list of expressions emerged for acceptance include:
CEFR or CEF 2.0 2.0 38
Enterprise 2.0 (Knowledge Management 2.0)
But there are also uses that have nothing to do with Web 2.0 itself, and just use the fashionable terminology. A distant example of the original domain is the use of “Depression 2.0” on the cover of Time39 to discuss the 2008 financial crisis.
December 25, 2006, Time Magazine selected users as person of the year 2006. Since 1927 (when the magazine awarded the first title of Personality of the Year), it is the eighth time that the personality of the year is not an exceptional one in particular recognized by the editorial staff of Time but a group of people. The magazine wanted to pay tribute to the multitude of anonymous Internet users who took control of information on the web through web 2.0 backlink building services applications.