I have just read
Dare Obasanjo's recent contribution to the Web 2.0 clarification
effort. His post-processing of the
Web 2.0 treatise by Tim O'Reillycertainly got me thinking about the thorny issue of attempting to define Web 2.0. As most already know, the subject of Web 2.0 definition has been contentious from the onset (unfortunately for the wrong reasons: hype over substance):
just take a look at the oxymoronic Wikipedia
2.0 imbroglio to get my drift. In retrospect, I should have
called on
Esquire magazine to get the Web 2.0 article going :-)
).
Anyway, back to Dare's analysis of Tim's 7 Web 2.0 litmus test items listed below:
-
Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective
scalability
-
Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that
get richer as more people use them
-
Trusting users as co-developers
-
Harnessing collective intelligence
-
Leveraging the long tail through customer
self-service
-
Software above the level of a single device
-
Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND
business models
And trimmed down to 3 by Dare:
-
Exposes Web services that can be accessed on any device
or platform by any developer or user. RSS feeds, RESTful APIs and
SOAP APIs are all examples of Web services.
-
Harnesses the collective knowledge of its user base to
benefit users
-
Leverages the long tail through customer
self-service
Well, I would like to summarize this a little further using a few excerpts from my numerous contributions to the Web 2.0 talk page on Wikipedia (albeit mildly revised; see strikeouts etc.):
Web 2.0 is a web of executable
service invocation endpoints (those Web Services URIs) and
well-formed content (all of that RSS, Atom, RDF, XHTML, etc. based
Web Content out on the NET). The executable
service invocation endpoints and well-formed content are accessible
via URIs.
Put in even simpler terms, Web 2.0 is an incarnation of
the web defined by URIs for invoking Web Services and/or consuming
or syndicating well-formed content.
Looks like I've self edited my own definition in the process.
:-)
If you don't grok this definition then consider using it as a
trigger for taking a closer look at the dynamics that genuinely
differentiate Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.
In another Wikipedia "talk page" contribution (regarding "Web 2.0 Business Impact") I attempt to answer the question posed
here, which should also shed light on the premise of my definition above:
Web 1.0 was about web sites geared towards an interaction
with human beings as opposed to computers. In a sense this mirrors
the difference between HTML and XML.
A simple example (purchasing a book):
amazon.com provides value to you by enabling you to search
and purchase the desired book online via the site
http://www.amazon.com.
In the Web 1.0 era the process of searching for your
desired book, and then eventually purchasing the book in question,
required visible interaction with the site http://www.amazon.com.
In today's Web 2.0 based Web the process of discovering a catalog
of books, searching for your particular book of interest, and
eventually purchasing the book, occurs via Web Services which
amazon has chosen to expose via an executable endpoint (the Web
point of presence for exposing its Web Services).
Direct interaction via http://www.amazon.com is no longer
required. A weblog can quite easily associate keywords, tags, and
post categories with items in amazon.com's catalogs. In addition,
weblogs can also act as entry points for consuming the amazon.com
value proposition (making books available for purchase online), by
enabling you to purchase a book directly from the weblog (assuming
the blog owner is an amazon associate etc..). Now compare the
impact of this kind of value discovery and consumption cycle driven
by software to the same process driven by humans interaction with a
static or dynamic HTML page (Web 1.0 site).
To surmise, Web 2.0 is a reflection of the potential of XML
expressed through the collective impact of Web Services (XML based
distributed computing) and Well-formed Content (Blogosphere,
Wikisphere, XHTML micro content etc.). The potential simply comes
down to the ability to ultimately connect events, triggers,
impulses (chatter, conversation, etc.), and data in general via
URIs.
Let's never forget that XML is the reason why we have a
blogosphere (RSS/Atom/RDF are applications of XML). Likewise, XML
is also the reason why we have Web Services (doesn't matter what
format).
As I have stated in the past, we must go by Web 2.0 en route
what is popularly referred to as the Semantic Web (it will be known
by another name by the time we get there; 3.0 or 4.0, who knows or
cares?). At the current time, the prerequisite activity of self
annotation is in full swing on the current Web, thanks to the
inflective effects of Web 2.0.
BTW - Would this
URI to
all Semantic Web related posts on my blog pass the Web 2.0
litmus test? Likewise, this
URI to all
Web 2.0 related posts? I wonder :-)