SEMINAR REPORT

WEB 2.0
2006-2010 BATCH

Semester VII

submitted by

JESSIL UMMER C A

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTESCIENCE AND

ENGINEERING
 VISWAJYOTHI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY,
MUVATTUPUZHA

ABSTRACT

Web 2.0 is a term describing changing trends in the use of World Wide Web technology and web
design that aims to enhance creativity, information sharing, and collaboration among users. These
concepts have led to the development and evolution of web-based communities and hosted services,
such as social-networking sites, video sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies. The term became
notable after the first O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004. 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 utilize the Web.

Basically, the term encapsulates the idea of the proliferation of interconnectivity and social interactions on
the Web. Tim O'Reilly regards Web 2.0 as business embracing the web as a platform and using its
strengths. The features that encompasses the essence of Web 2.0 are building applications and services
around the unique features of the Internet, as opposed to building applications and expecting the Internet
to suit as a platform. Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. They can
build on the interactive facilities of "Web 1.0" to provide "Network as platform" computing, allowing
users to run software applications entirely through a browser.

While Web 2.0 technologies are difficult to define precisely, the

outline of emerging applications has become clear over the past year. We can thus
essentially view Web 2.0 as semantic Web technologies integrated into, or
powering, large-scale Web applications. The base of Web 2.0 applications resides in
the resource description framework (RDF) for providing a means to link data from
multiple Web sites or databases. With the SPARQL query language, a SQL-like
standard for querying RDF data, applications can use native graph-based RDF stores
and extract RDF data from traditional databases.
1. INTRODUCTION

Wikipedia defines Web 2.0 as “ a term describing changing trends in the use of World Wide Web
technology and web design that aims to enhance creativity, information sharing, and collaboration
among users.” There is huge amount of disagreement among internet experts on what Web 2.0 is
and how the term is defined. Some say that Web 2.0 is a set of philosophies and practices that provide
Web users with a deep and rich experience. Others say it's a new collection of applications and
technologies that make it easier for people to find information and connect with one another online. A few
journalists maintain that the term doesn't mean anything at all, it's just a marketing ploy used to hype
social networking sites.

The Web 2.0 concepts have led to the development and evolution of web-based communities and hosted
services, such as social-networking sites, video sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies. The term
became notable after the first O'Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004. O'Reilly Media is an American
media company established by Tim O'Reilly that publishes books and web sites and
produces conferences on computer technology topics. 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 utilize the Web. According to Tim O'Reilly, “Web 2.0
is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the Internet as platform,
and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.” O'Reilly Media publisher Dale
Dougherty coined the phrase Web 2.0.

Some technology experts, notably Tim Berners-Lee, have questioned whether one can use the
term in any meaningful way, since many of the technology components of Web 2.0 have existed since the
early days of the Web.In September 2005, Tim O'Reilly posted a blog entry that defined Web 2.0. The
explanation spanned five pages of text and graphics illustrating O'Reilly's take on what the term
meant. O'Reilly's philosophy of Web 2.0 included these ideas

• Using the Web as an applications platform

• Democratizing the Web

• Employing new methods to distribute information

Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. They can build on the
interactive facilities of "Web 1.0" to provide "Network as platform" computing, allowing users to
run software-applications entirely through a browser. Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and
exercise control over that data. These sites may have an "Architecture of participation" that encourages
users to add value to the application as they use it. This stands in contrast to very old traditional websites,
the sort which limited visitors to viewing and whose content only the site's owner could modify. Web 2.0
sites often feature a rich, user-friendly interface based on Ajax,openlaszlo, Flex or similar rich
media. The sites may also have social-networking aspects. The O'Reilly Media Web site is a prime
example of Web 2.0 at work.

The concept of Web-as-participation-platform captures many of these characteristics. Bart Decrem,

a founder and former CEO of Flock, calls Web 2.0 the "participatory Web" and regards the Web-as-
information-source as Web 1.0. The impossibility of excluding group-members who don’t 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.

The characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata,
web standards, scalability, openness, freedom and collective intelligence by way of user
participation – all should be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0. In fact web 1.0 came into
existence after the evolution of web 2.0.

In alluding to the version-numbers that commonly designate software upgrades, the phrase
"Web 2.0" hints at an improved form of the World Wide Web. Technologies such as weblogs, wikis,
podcasts, RSS feeds (and other forms of many-to-many publishing), social software, and web
application programming interfaces (APIs) provide enhancements over read-only websites. The idea of
"Web 2.0" can also relate to a transition of some websites from isolated information silos to interlinked
computing platforms that function like locally-available software in the perception of the user. Web 2.0
also includes a social element where users generate and distribute content, often with freedom to share
and re-use. This can result in a rise in the economic value of the web to businesses, as users can
perform more activities online.

2. WEB 2.0 PHILOSOPHY

2.1 Web as a Platform

In the blog entry that described his philosophy of Web 2.0, Tim O'Reilly wrote that before the dot-
com bubble burst, Web companies like Netscape concentrated on providing a product. In
Netscape's case, the product was a Web browser. These products would then serve as the foundation
for a suite of applications and other products. O'Reilly's vision of a Web 2.0 company is one that
provides a service rather than a product.

The example O'Reilly used in his blog entry was Google. He said that Google's value comes from
several factors:

● It's a multi-platform service. You can access Google on a PC or Mac (using a Web browser) or on a
mobile device like a cell phone.

● It avoids the business model established by the software industry. You don't need to buy a particular
software package to use the service.

● It includes a specialized database of information -- search results -- that seamlessly works

with its search engine software. Without the database, the search application is worthless. On
the other hand, without the search application, the database is too large to navigate.

Another important part of using the Web as a platform is designing what O'Reilly calls rich user
experiences. These are applications and applets, the small programs that fit within a larger program
or Web page, to make Web surfing and accessing the Internet more enjoyable. For example, the
service Twitter provides is based off of a very simple concept, members can send a message to an entire
network of friends using a simple interface. But Twitter also allows third-party developers to access part
of the Twitter application programming interface(API). This access allows them to make new applications
based off the basic features of Twitter. For example, Twitterific is a program for the Mac designed by a
third-party developer called the Iconfactory. It integrates the Twitter service into a desktop application for
users. While Twitter didn't develop Twitterific, it did give the Iconfactory the information it needed to
create the application.

Other sites follow a similar philosophy. In 2007, the social networking site Facebook gave third-party
developers access to its API. Before long, hundreds of new applications appeared, using Facebook as a
platform. Facebook members can choose from dozens of applications to enhance their browsing
experiences.

2.2 Democratization of Web

Web democratization refers to the way people access and contribute to the Internet. Many early Web
pages were static, with no way for users to add to or interact with the information. In some ways, many
companies thought of the Internet as an extension of television -- browsers would look passively at
whatever content the Web provided. Other companies had different ideas, though. For example, Amazon
allowed visitors to create accounts and submit book reviews. Anyone could play the role of a literary
critic. Before long, other customers were using these reviews to help them
decide what books to buy. Amazon's members were helping to shape the browsing experience.

The Web 2.0 philosophy emphasizes the importance of people's interactions with the Internet.
Everyone has an opportunity to contribute to the Web. And, by paying attention to what users are looking
for and doing online, a company can provide better service and build customer loyalty. Some Web
pages absolutely depend upon user contributions -- without them, there'd be no Web site. Wikis are a good
example of this. Users can enter information, modify existing data or even delete entire sections in wikis.
Ultimately, the people who visit the Web site determine what it contains and how it looks.

The Amazon Web site represents some Web 2.0 concepts in features like its customer book reviews. Tim
O'Reilly wrote about the importance of harnessing collective intelligence. He stated that the
Web sites that are shaped by user contributions will evolve into more superior destinations than other
sites. He cited Wikipedia as the perfect example. O'Reilly felt that the community of informed users
could monitor and maintain the site. However, since anyone can contribute information to Wikipedia, a
person could submit incorrect information either by accident or on purpose. There's no way to
guarantee the accuracy of the information, and you can't hold anyone responsible for
submitting incorrect information.

Another element of Web democratization is the tag. Web tags are labels that allow users to associate
information with particular topics. Many sites allow users to apply tags to information ranging from
uploaded images to blog entries. Tags become important when people use search engines. Users can
tag their information with search terms, and when another user enters a search term that matches the tag,
that information will be listed as a search result. Tagging data makes searching for information faster
and more efficient. User-contributed tags are a part of folksonomy, a classification system on the Web.

The last piece of the democratization puzzle is open source software. An open source program is one in
which the programmer allows anyone to look at the code he or she used to create the application. And
you can do more than just look.
Some may allow you to modify the code to make it more efficient or even to create a new program using
the original code as a foundation. Ideally, an open source program will receive the best quality assurance
testing available because anyone can examine and test it.

2.3. Distributing Information.

Before the dot-com crash, many Web pages featured pictures and text that the Web page administrators
rarely updated. As Web editing software became more user-friendly, it became easier to make
changes more often. Some companies continued to present information in a static, non-interactive
way, but a few began to experiment with new ways of distributing information. One new way was to
use Web syndication formats like Really Simple Syndication (RSS). With RSS, users could
subscribe to a Web page and receive updates whenever the administrator for that page made
any changes. Some programmers designed applications that created RSS readers on PC or Mac
desktops, which meant users could check on updates for their favorite Web sites without even opening a
Web browser.

Technorati is a Web site that tracks and catalogs blogs. Another way of sharing information on the Web
came as a surprise to many people: blogs. While people have created personal Web pages since the
early days of the Web, the blog format is very different from the traditional personal Web page. For one
thing, most blogs are organized chronologically, so it's possible for a reader to see the most recent entry,
then go back into archives and follow the blog's progression from start to finish. Blogs are a good way to
get information out to readers fast. People read blogs, see things that interest them and write about it in
their own blogs. Information begins to spread from one blogger to another. Marketing firms call this blog-
to-blog method of transmitting information viral marketing. Many companies are looking into ways to use
viral marketing to their advantage -- it's both powerful advertising and inexpensive because the targeted
audience does most of the work for you. Web pages like blogs rely on the use of permalinks.
Permalinks are hypertext links that connect to a specific blog entry. Without permalinks, discussing blog
entries would become a tedious process. All links would lead the user to the main blog page, which may
have been updated since the link was first created. Permalinks allow users to anchor a pathway to a
specific blog entry. If you see a particularly fascinating discussion on a blog, you can use a permalink to
guide your friends there to read up on the subject.

Another key concept to Web 2.0 is the incorporation of non-computer devices into the Internet.
Many cell phones and PDAs now have some level of Internet connectivity, and Apple's iTunes application
integrates smoothly with iPods. O'Reilly cites the expansion of Internet services beyond computers as
another example of how the Web is evolving.
OVERVIEW

The Web is entering a new phase of evolution. There has been much debate recently about
what to call this new phase. Some would prefer to not name it all, while others suggest
continuing to call it "Web 2.0". However, this new phase of evolution has quite a different
focus from what Web 2.0 has come to mean.

http://novaspivack.typepad.com/RadarNetworksTowardsAWebOS.jpg

3. WEB 1.0

3.1 Definition
Web 1.0 is a retronym which refers to the state of the World Wide Web, and website design style before
the Web 2.0 phenomenon, and included most websites in the period between 1994 and 2004. For the most
part websites were a strictly one-way published media, similar to the Gopher protocol that came before it.
Personal web pages were common in Web 1.0, consisting of mainly static pages hosted on free
hosting services such as Geocities, nowadays dynamically generated blogs and social networking
profiles are more popular, often keeping real-time statistics and allowing for readers to comment on posts.
At the Technet Summit in November 2006, Reed Hastings, founder and CEO of Netflix, stated a simple
formula for defining the phases of the Web, “ Web 1.0 was dial-up, 50K average bandwidth, Web 2.0 is an
average 1 megabit of bandwidth and Web 3.0 will be 10 megabits of bandwidth all the time, which will
be the full video Web, and that will feel like Web 3.0. ” Typical design elements of a Web 1.0 site
included:

• Static pages instead of dynamically generated content.

• The use of framesets.

• Proprietary HTML extensions such as the <blink> and <marquee> tags introduced
during the first browser war.

• Online guestbooks.

• GIF buttons, typically 88x31 pixels promoting web browsers and other products.

• HTML forms sent via email. A user would fill in a form, and upon clicking submit their email
client would attempt to send an email containing the form's details

When Dale Dougherty of O'Reilly Media coined the term "Web 2.0," he probably didn't know he was
stirring up a hornets' nest. Defining Web 2.0 was only half of the problem. The other half had to do
with the use of "2.0." The number suggested that this was a new version of the World Wide Web. If Web
2.0 was real, what was Web 1.0? Were there still Web pages on the Internet that fell into the Web 1.0
classification? If you search the Web, you'll find no shortage of answers to these questions. Unfortunately,
there's no agreement on the answers. We can understand what Web 1.0 is only if we assume that there's a
Web 2.0. We will have to use O'Reilly's definition of Web 2.0 to figure out what Web 1.0 means.

It's hard to define Web 1.0 for several reasons. First, Web 2.0 doesn't refer to a specific advance in Web
technology. Instead, Web 2.0 refers to a set of techniques for Web page design and execution. Second,
some of these techniques have been around since the World Wide Web first launched, so it's impossible
to separate Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 in a time line. The definition of Web 1.0 completely depends upon the
definition of Web 2.0.

With that in mind, if Web 2.0 is a collection of approaches that are the most effective on the World
Wide Web, then Web 1.0 includes everything else. As for what it means to be "effective," Tim O'Reilly
says that it's providing users with an engaging experience so that they'll want to return to the Web page
in the future.

Here's a collection of strategies O'Reilly considers to be part of the Web 1.0 philosophy:

● Web 1.0 sites are static. They contain information that might be useful, but there's no reason for a
visitor to return to the site later. An example might be a personal Web page that gives information about
the site's owner, but never changes. A Web 2.0 version might be a blog or MySpace account that owners
can frequently update.

● Web 1.0 sites aren't interactive. Visitors can only visit these sites; they can't impact or contribute to
the sites. Most organizations have profile pages that visitors can look at but not impact or alter, whereas
a wiki allows anyone to visit and make changes.

● Web 1.0 applications are proprietary. Under the Web 1.0 philosophy, companies develop
software applications that users can download, but they can't see how the application works or change
it. A Web 2.0 application is an open source program, which means the source code for the program is
freely available. Users can see how the application works and make modifications or even build new
applications based on earlier programs. For example, Netscape Navigator was a proprietary Web browser
of the Web 1.0 era. Firefox follows the Web 2.0 philosophy and provides developers with all the tools
they need to create new Firefox applications.

3.2 Classification

If Web 2.0 is a collection of the most effective ways to create and use Web pages, is there any reason to
make a page that follows the Web 1.0 model? It may sound surprising, but the answer is actually yes.
There are times when a Web 1.0 approach is appropriate. Part of the Web 2.0 philosophy is creating a
Web page that visitors can impact or change. For example, the Amazon Web site allows visitors to post
product reviews. Future visitors will have a chance to read these reviews, which might
influence their decision to buy the product. The ability to contribute information is helpful. But in
some cases, the webmaster wouldn't want users to be able to impact the Web page. A restaurant might
have a Web page that shows the current menu. While the menu might evolve over time, the webmaster
wouldn't want visitors to be able to make changes. The menu's purpose is to let people know what the
restaurant serves; it's not the right place for commentary or reviews.

An example of a good Web 1.0 approach is information resources. Wikipedia is an online

encyclopedia resource that allows visitors to make changes to most articles. Ideally, with enough people
contributing to Wikipedia entries, the most accurate and relevant information about every subject will
eventually be part of each article. Unfortunately, because anyone can change entries, it's possible for
someone to post false or misleading information. People can purposefully or unwittingly damage an
article's credibility by adding inaccurate facts. While moderators do patrol the pages for these acts
of vandalism, there's no guarantee that the information on an entry will be accurate on any given day.

Wikipedia is an example of a website with Web 2.0 approach. On the flip side of the coin are official
encyclopedias. Encyclopedia entries are fact-checked, edited and attributed to a specific author or entity.
The process of creating an encyclopedia article is very structured. Perhaps most importantly, there is a
stress on objectivity. The author of an encyclopedia entry must present facts without being subjective; a
person making an edit to a Wikipedia article could have a personal agenda and as a result hide certain
facts or publish false information. While Wikipedia can be a good starting place to find information about
most subjects, it's almost always a bad idea to use it as your sole source of information.

World Book Encyclopedia's Web page is an example of a Web 1.0 information resource.The
boundary between what counts as Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 isn't always clear. Some Web sites are very static
but include a section for visitor comments. The site as a whole might follow the Web 1.0 approach, but
the comments section is a Web 2.0 technique. Even Web experts disagree on how to classify Web pages,
and some think that it's a mistake to even try labeling them at all. There's no denying that some Web
strategies are more effective than others. In the end, whether or not there's such a thing as Web 1.0 is
a moot point. The important thing is to learn how to use the Web to its full potential.

4. WEB 3.0

4.1. Basics

Internet experts think Web 3.0 is going to be like having a personal assistant who knows
practically everything about you and can access all the information on the Internet to answer
any question. Many compare Web 3.0 to a giant database. While Web 2.0 uses the Internet to make
connections between people, Web 3.0 will use the Internet to make connections with information. Some
experts see Web 3.0 replacing the current Web while others believe it will exist as a separate network.
It's easier to get the concept with an example. Let's say that you're thinking about going on a vacation.
You want to go someplace warm and tropical. You have set aside a budget of $3,000 for your trip. You
want a nice place to stay, but you don't want it to take up too much of your budget. You also want a good
deal on a flight. With the Web technology currently available to you, you'd have to do a lot of research to
find the best vacation options. You'd need to research potential destinations and decide which one is
right for you. You might visit two or three discount travel sites and compare rates for flights and hotel
rooms. You'd spend a lot of your time looking through results on various search engine results pages. The
entire process could take several hours. If your Web 3.0 browser retrieves information for you based on
your likes and dislikes, could other people learn things about you that you'd rather keep private by
looking at your results? What if someone performs an Internet search on you? Will your activities on
the Internet become public knowledge? Some people worry that by the time we have answers to
these questions, it'll be too late to do anything about it.

According to some Internet experts, with Web 3.0 you'll be able to sit back and let the Internet do all the
work for you. You could use a search service and narrow the parameters of your search. The
browser program then gathers, analyzes and presents the data to you in a way that makes
comparison a snap. It can do this because Web 3.0 will be able to understand information on the
Web.Right now, when you use a Web search engine, the engine isn't able to really understand your
search. It looks for Web pages that contain the keywords found in your search terms. The search engine
can't tell if the Web page is actually relevant for your search. It can only tell that the keyword
appears on the Web page. For example, if you searched for the term "Saturn," you'd end up with
results for Web pages about the planet and others about the car manufacturer.

A Web 3.0 search engine could find not only the keywords in your search, but also interpret the context
of your request. It would return relevant results and suggest other content related to your search
terms. In our vacation example, if you typed "tropical vacation destinations under $3,000" as a search
request, the Web 3.0 browser might include a list of fun activities or great restaurants related to the search
results. It would treat the entire Internet as a massive database of information available for any query.

4.2. Approach

In the case of Web 3.0, most Internet experts agree about its general traits. They believe that Web 3.0
will provide users with richer and more relevant experiences. Many also believe that with Web
3.0, every user will have a unique Internet profile based on that user's browsing history. Web 3.0 will
use this profile to tailor the browsing experience to each individual. That means that if two
different people each performed an Internet search with the same keywords using the same service,
they'd receive different results determined by their individual profiles.The technologies and software
required for this kind of application aren't yet mature. Services like TiVO and Pandora provide
individualized content based on user input, but they both rely on a trial-and-error approach that isn't
as efficient as what the experts say Web 3.0 will be. More importantly, both TiVO and Pandora have a
limited scope -- television shows and music, respectively -- whereas Web 3.0 will involve all the
information on the Internet.

Some experts believe that the foundation for Web 3.0 will be application programming interfaces (APIs).
An API is an interface designed to allow developers to create applications that take advantage of a certain
set of resources. Many Web 2.0 sites include APIs that give programmers access to the sites'
unique data and capabilities. For example, Facebook's API allows developers to create programs that
use Facebook as a staging ground for games, quizzes, product reviews and more.

Web 3.0 will likely plug into your individual tastes and browsing habits. One Web 2.0 trend that could
help the development of Web 3.0 is the mashup. A mashup is the combination of two or more
applications into a single application. For example, a developer might combine a program that lets
users review restaurants with Google Maps. The new mashup application could show not only
restaurant reviews, but also map them out so that the user could see the restaurants' locations. Some
Internet experts believe that creating mashups will be so easy in Web 3.0 that anyone will be able to do
it.Widgets are small applications that people can insert into Web pages by copying and embedding lines
of code into a Web page's code. They can be games, news feeds, video players or just about anything
else. Some Internet prognosticators believe that Web 3.0 will let users combine widgets together to make
mashups by just clicking and dragging a couple of icons into a box on a Web page. Want an application
that shows you where news stories are happening? Combine a news feed icon with a Google Earth icon
and Web 3.0 does the rest. How? Well, no one has quite figured that part out yet.

Other experts think that Web 3.0 will start fresh. Instead of using HTML as the basic coding language, it
will rely on some new and unnamed language. These experts suggest it might be easier to start from
scratch rather than try to change the current Web. However, this version of Web 3.0 is so theoretical
that it's practically impossible to say how it will work.

Tim Berners Lee, the man responsible for the World Wide Web has his own theory of what the future of
the Web will be. He calls it the Semantic Web, and many Internet experts borrow heavily from his work
when talking about Web 3.0. 4.3 Semantic Web
Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989. He created it as an interface for the Internet
and a way for people to share information with one another. Berners-Lee disputes the existence of
Web 2.0, calling it nothing more than meaningless jargon. Berners-Lee maintains that he intended the
World Wide Web to do all the things that Web 2.0 is supposed to do. Berners-Lee's vision of the future
Web is similar to the concept of Web 3.0. It's called the Semantic Web. Right now, the Web's
structure is geared for humans. It's easy for us to visit a Web page and understand what it's
all about.

Computers can't do that. A search engine might be able to scan for keywords, but it can't understand how
those keywords are used in the context of the page. With the Semantic Web, computers will scan and
interpret information on Web pages using software agents. These software agents will be programs that
crawl through the Web, searching for relevant information. They'll be able to do that because the
Semantic Web will have collections of information called ontologies. In terms of the Internet, an ontology
is a file that defines the relationships among a group of terms. For example, the term "cousin" refers to the
familial relationship between two people who share one set of grandparents. A Semantic Web
ontology might define each familial role like this:

1. Grandparent: A direct ancestor two generations removed from the subject

2. Parent: A direct ancestor one generation removed from the subject

3. Brother or sister: Someone who shares the same parent as the subject

4. Nephew or niece: Child of the brother or sister of the subject

5. Aunt or uncle: Sister or brother to a parent of the subject

6. Cousin: child of an aunt or uncle of the subject

For the Semantic Web to be effective, ontologies have to be detailed and comprehensive. In Berners-
Lee's concept, they would exist in the form of metadata. Metadata is information included in the
code for Web pages that is invisible to humans, but readable by computers.

Constructing ontologies takes a lot of work. In fact, that's one of the big obstacles the Semantic Web
faces. Will people be willing to put in the effort required to make comprehensive ontologies for their Web
sites? Will they maintain them as the Web sites change? Critics suggest that the task of creating
and maintaining such complex files is too much work for most people.
On the other hand, some people really enjoy labeling or tagging Web objects and information. Web
tags categorize the tagged object or information. Several blogs include a tag option, making it easy to
classify journal entries under specific topics. Photo sharing sites like Flickr allow users to tag pictures.
Google even has turned it into a game: Google Image Labeler pits two people against each other in a
labeling contest. Each player tries to create the largest number of relevant tags for a series of images.
According to some experts, Web 3.0 will be able to search tags and labels and return the most relevant
results back to the user. Perhaps Web 3.0 will combine Berners-Lee's concept of the Semantic Web with
Web 2.0's tagging culture. Even though Web 3.0 is more theory than reality, that hasn't stopped
people from guessing what will come next.

5. CRITICISM

The term Web 2.0 has inspired a lot of discussion. Some disagree on exactly what the term
means, and others argue that it doesn't mean anything at all. Here are some summaries of the main
arguments:

● Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, dismissed the Web 2.0 concept. He called Web
2.0 "a piece of jargon" and said "nobody even knows what it means" in an IBM developerWorks
interview. Berners-Lee said the World Wide Web was always a way for people to connect with one
another and that there was nothing new or revolutionary about the Web 2.0 philosophy.

● Russell Shaw, a telecommunications author, posted a blog entry in 2005 in which he said that the
term was nothing more than a marketing slogan. He wrote that while the individual elements of Web
2.0 actually do exist, they can't be grouped together under a single term or concept. Shaw claimed that
the concepts in Web 2.0 were too broad, and that many of its goals conflicted with each other.

● Jay Fienberg, an information architecture specialist, called Web 2.0 a "retrospective

concept." He said that only a year after O'Reilly introduced the term, it had become a marketing
gimmick. Fienberg pointed out that many popular technology businesses adopted the term to
make their companies sound innovative. This in turn watered down any meaning the original name may
have had.

● Internet essayist Paul Graham originally dismissed Web 2.0 as a buzz word but later recanted after
O'Reilly published his take on what Web 2.0 means. Even then, Graham said the term originally had
no meaning but became more defined as people looked deeper into the current state of the
Web. His perspective is that Web 2.0 refers to the best way to use the World Wide Web, through real
connections between users and higher levels of interactivity.
There are hundreds of other blog entries that focus on Web 2.0, what it means and whether it's really a
step forward in the evolution of the Internet. It's too early to say if the term will have staying power or if
it will fade away as just another marketing slogan. Some people feel that Web 2.0 has so many
meanings that it's been reduced to a buzz word. A few Web 2.0 experts have shied away from the term
and use phrases like social networking and Web democratization instead.

7. CONCLUSION

Although there has been widespread debate on whether actually a Web 2.0 exists or not, Web 2.0 has been
one of the most talked about and discussed topics in recent times. There is no denying the fact that
there is a definite visible change of trends while using the world wide web. Even criticizers of Web 2.0
do not deny this fact.

Web 2.0 can be said as a term which had little or no meaning at the time it was defined but as a
result of constant debate and discussion has lead to have meanings and applications of
numerous dimensions. In brief, the characteristics of Web 2.0 include:

● The ability for visitors to make changes to Web pages.

● Using Web pages to link people to other users.

● Fast and efficient ways to share content.

● New ways to get information.

● Expanding access to the Internet beyond the computer.

REFERENCES

● Graham, Paul. "Web 2.0." PaulGraham.com. November, 2005.

http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html

● O'Reilly, Tim. "What is Web 2.0."

O'Reilly Media. September 30, 2005.

http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim
/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

● Wikipedia.com, “Web 2.0.”, “Web 1.0”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_1.0

● HowStuffsWork.com, “How Web 2.0 works".

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-20.htML

• WWW.IEEE.ORG

• www.spectrum.ieee.org