Information Librarian: Health Sciences @ UJ

news, information and useful links for the faculty of health sciences from the doornfontein campus (dfc) library at the university of johannesburg

Archive for the ‘Web 2.0’ Category

second generation of web development and design, that aims to facilitate communication, secure information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web

Library 2.0: service for the next-generation library

Posted by Mlungisi Dlamini on May 8, 2009

By Michael E. Casey and Laura C. Savastinuk — Library Journal, 9/1/2006

Libraries are changing. Funding limits and customer demands are transforming staffing levels, service models, access to resources, and services to the public. Administrators and taxpayers are seeking more efficient ways of delivering services to achieve greater returns on financial investments.

Enter Library 2.0. This new model for library service is being discussed online, at conferences, in administrative offices, and at the reference desk. If you and your library staff are not among those already talking 2.0, pay attention; Library 2.0 could revitalize the way we serve and interact with our customers.

The heart of Library 2.0 is user-centered change. It is a model for library service that encourages constant and purposeful change, inviting user participation in the creation of both the physical and the virtual services they want, supported by consistently evaluating services. It also attempts to reach new users and better serve current ones through improved customer-driven offerings. Each component by itself is a step toward better serving our users; however, it is through the combined implementation of all of these that we can reach Library 2.0.

While not required, technology can help libraries create a customer-driven, 2.0 environment. Web 2.0 technologies have played a significant role in our ability to keep up with the changing needs of library users. Technological advances in the past several years have enabled libraries to create new services that before were not possible, such as virtual reference, personalized OPAC interfaces, or downloadable media that library customers can use in the comfort of their own homes. This increase in available technologies gives libraries the ability to offer improved, customer-driven service opportunities.

Tapping new users through the “long tail”

In the current library world—particularly in public institutions—we are accustomed to focusing our services on those customers we already reach. Michael Stephens explains on ALA TechSource, “As we reach out to users, we must remember all of the folks we serve.” Libraries are in the habit of providing the same services and the same programs to the same groups. We grow comfortable with our provisions and we fail to change. When thinking about this new model for library service, Stephens believes that “Library 2.0 will be a meeting place, online or in the physical world, where [library users'] needs will be fulfilled through entertainment, information, and the ability to create [their] own stuff to contribute to the ocean of content out there.”

No matter how hard we try, many of the services we offer are not being used by a majority of our population. It’s never been easy to reach this group with physical services, because libraries are constrained by space and money and cannot carry every item that every user desires. Many public libraries now try to offer a hit-driven collection plan, putting forth popular materials that many of their existing customers request.

This keeps some traditional customers satisfied, but non-users might be better served if librarians consider what’s called the long tail. Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired, who coined the phrase in an article of the same name in 2004, argues that the demand for movies or books that are not hits far outnumbers the demand for those that are hits. Match those nonhits with the people who are interested in seeing them, and suddenly you have a group of constituents equal to or greater than those who want to see and read the hits. (For more on libraries and the long tail, see Katherine Mossman’s “Serving the Niche,” LJ 7/06, p. 38–40.)

Going after the diverse long tail requires a combination of physical and virtual services, a move underway in many libraries, with efforts such as interlibrary loan (ILL) purchase-on-demand from online used-book retailers, home delivery of books to customers who otherwise never visit libraries, and by offering more electronic texts. Tim O’Reilly, in his seminal essay “What Is Web 2.0,” discusses the concept of harnessing the collective intelligence of everyone who uses a product. In an online environment, this takes the form of feedback, user reviews, and user-crafted social networks. Sites as diverse as Amazon, Flickr, MySpace, Facebook, and Wikipedia (see “2.0 Resources,” p. 42) all depend on high levels of user participation to expand the value of the product.

Blogs and wikis are other ways to engage customers and push fresh content to users. Temple University Library, Philadelphia, uses its blog to provide a place for “news, events, and discussion.” Ann Arbor District Library (AADL), MI, went a step further and turned its homepage into a blog—an opportunity to build community and also quickly respond to feedback. The resourceful librarians at the Saint Joseph County Public Library in South Bend, IN, used open source wiki software to create a successful subject guide that facilitates customer feedback.

Customer as collaborator

At its most basic level, the Library 2.0 model gives library users a participatory role in the services libraries offer and the way they are used. Customers, should they desire, will be able to tailor library services to best meet their own needs. This can be done electronically, such as through the personalization of library web pages, or physically through new service options such as allowing customers to call impromptu book talks or discussion groups. Such collaborative efforts require librarians to develop a more intensive routine of soliciting customer response and regularly evaluating and updating services.

To increase both your library’s appeal and value to users, consider implementing customizable and participatory services. The Library 2.0 model seeks to harness our customer’s knowledge to supplement and improve library services. User comments, tags, and ratings feed user-created content back into these web sites. Ultimately, this creates a more informative product for subsequent users. Your library customers have favorite titles, authors, and genres. Allowing them to comment, write reviews, create their own tags and ratings, and share them with others through a more versatile OPAC interface will enhance your catalog. Customers want to know what their neighbors are reading, listening to, and watching. Hennepin County Library, MN, has taken this step by allowing users to comment in the catalog.

When creating customizable services you should also consider customer privacy. Libraries should remain as vigilant with protecting customer privacy with technology-based services as they are with traditional, physical library services. There are ways to preserve privacy, such as by allowing anonymous comments and tagging within the catalog. Library users should not be required to identify themselves publicly in order to participate in virtual services.

While a lot of the discussion about Library 2.0 involves technology, libraries with limited technology funding or in communities affected by the digital divide can still work toward Library 2.0. If technology options are limited, consider physical functions that will better serve current customers as well as bring in new ones. You can develop ideas for new, affordable offerings, including physical services, from other libraries, staff feedback, and by surveying both current and potential customers.

Handling the technology

The openness of Library 2.0 extends to the software and hardware that libraries use, including integrated library systems (ILS). Modifiable automation systems and catalogs are preferable to proprietary, closed systems. An excellent example of this is the Evergreen ILS project that is being developed by the Georgia Public Library Service for use by the Georgia Library PINES Program.

Some librarians, such as John Blyberg, Ann Arbor’s network administrator, are concerned that ILS vendors, in an attempt to capitalize on the changes brought about by Library 2.0, will design proprietary interfaces to link library catalog data with our users. Blyberg has responded with a call for open standards. His proposed “ILS Customer Bill of Rights” charges libraries with the need to have usable access to the data that they own in their databases and the ability to create service applications that use that data in new and creative ways. [For another AADL innovation from Blyberg, see “Baker's Smudges,” p. 30.]

Not every library system can employ programmers or maintain a large IT staff. “I’d say the problem (not the excuse) is that a typical library webmaster is very part-time,” observes Steve Lawson, humanities liaison librarian for Tutt Library at Colorado College, Colorado Springs. “I would love to implement some of these Web 2.0 ideas, but with reference, instruction, and collection development responsibilities, I don’t have the time to innovate constantly. In my own case, I’m hoping I can leverage free sites like Flickr and PBWiki and APIs [an application program interface, the end result of which is often referred to as a mashup] like Google Maps to create a Web 2.0–friendly environment for the library web site.”

In other libraries, applying 2.0 is a question of awareness. “Ask yourself if your library is ready for this type of shift [in technology], because, overwhelmingly, the answer is no,” writes Jenny Levine of the Shifted Librarian blog and the American Library Association. “Librarians just aren’t thinking like this yet, and we need to change this. It’s at the very core of the whole ‘Library 2.0′ discussion, and this is why it’s so critical. If we keep our content locked up on our own web sites and don’t get it out there for people to use as they want to use it, then our content will fall by the wayside.”

For many, a realistic start means embracing some inexpensive, even free new technologies. Libraries currently offering word processing may want to move away from locally installed and administered applications and instead point customers to such wonderful online tools as Writely and Writeboard, which both offer word processing applications that run in the web browser. Michael Arrington, of the blog TechCrunch, says, “Writely is no longer a toy—it is fast becoming a legitimate alternative to Word.”

These online tools offer valuable collaborative functions. Two writers can simultaneously work on Writely, crafting changes visible to the other writer, no matter their physical distance. Many other Microsoft Office–style applications exist online. 37signals offers several useful online tools that range from its powerful project management application Basecamp to the personal information organizer Backpack and sharable to-do lists called Ta-da Lists—all of which are available in free, fully optioned versions. Also, Microsoft has recently announced online productivity tools to come from Microsoft Office Live.

2.0, all the time

What makes a service Library 2.0? Any service, physical or virtual, that successfully reaches users, is evaluated frequently, and makes use of customer input is a Library 2.0 service. Even older, traditional services can be Library 2.0 if criteria are met. Similarly, being new is not enough to make a service Library 2.0.

Many libraries have made encouraging advances in their electronic offerings by providing access to top-quality databases, downloadable audiobooks and music, and instant messaging reference services. Our own Gwinnett County Public Library (GCPL) in Lawrenceville, GA, has launched a successful downloadable music, video, and audiobook service. South Huntington Public Library, Huntington Station, NY, has already created an iPod Shuffle loan program. Some libraries have expanded physical services by creating specific areas for teen and community activities, reflecting the public’s desire for a civic space and exciting new programs. The Cecil County Public Library in Elkton, MD, offers Teen Game Nights. GCPL held a very successful teen band competition in 2005 as part of its Year of the Teen.

Currently, libraries have a tendency to plan, implement, and forget. Library 2.0 attempts to change this by encouraging the development of a schedule that includes regularly soliciting customer feedback and evaluating and updating services. Both new and existing library services should be revisited routinely to ensure that they are still meeting expected goals. Even older, traditional library services should be reviewed with a fresh eye to determine if any aspect needs updating.

When thinking about ways to work toward Library 2.0, consider what services your library already offers that could be improved as well as new things that can be added. This includes both technology-based and nontechnology services. Also consider applications that are presented virtually, such as virtual reference, and those offered in the branches, such as your ILL system. Libraries have to evolve continuously to keep up with the changing needs of their users. You can help keep your service offerings fresh by always looking for new ideas and reevaluating old ones.

The Public Library Association’s (PLA) Planning for Results is an example of a tool that can be used to evaluate library services. Planning for Results offers a starting point for measuring the worth of current services and system procedures. No matter which tool your library chooses to use, be it contracted consulting or an internally created plan, it is essential to create a schedule of regular evaluations for new and existing services and seek both staff and customer input. Be sure to survey both current and potential customers, as well as staff from all levels. A wide range of commentary will provide balanced feedback on the success of or demand for a service.

Your library may already offer some services that can be considered Library 2.0. If your organization combines these Library 2.0 options with a framework for continual change and customer input integrated into other operations within your library, it will be well on its way to becoming Library 2.0.

Many tools and ideas will come from the world of Web 2.0, and many will have nothing to do with technology. The specifics of the Library 2.0 model will be different for each library system. Every library has a different starting point. Through collaboration between staff and users, you will be able to develop a clear idea of how this model will work for your organization.

2.0 Resources
KEY READING    
Anderson, Chris, “The Long Tail,” Wired, October 2004.
www.wired.com/wired/archive
/12.10/tail.html		 Fallows, James, “A Journey to the Center of Yahoo,” New York Times, November 6, 2005. O’Reilly, Tim, “What Is Web 2.0”
OReilly.net. Posted September 30, 2005.
www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/
2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
BLOGS TALKING 2.0    
ALA TechSource
www.techsource.ala.org		 Blyberg.net
www.blyberg.net		 LibraryCrunch
www.librarycrunch.com
See Also…
library.coloradocollege.edu/steve		 The Shifted Librarian
www.theshiftedlibrarian.com		 Tame the Web
www.tametheweb.com
TechCrunch
www.techcrunch.com		    
2.0 ON THE WEB    
Amazon
www.amazon.com		 Backpack
www.backpackit.com		 Basecamp
www.basecamphq.com
Evergreen ILS Project
open-ils.org		 Facebook
www.facebook.com		 Flickr
www.flickr.com
Hennepin County Library
www.hclib.org/pub		 Microsoft Office Live
www.officelive.com		 MySpace
www.myspace.com
Ta-da Lists
www.tadalist.com		 Wikipedia
www.wikipedia.com		 Writeboard
www.writeboard.com
Writely
www.writely.com		 Zoho Office Suite and Productivity Tools
http://www.zoho.com		  

 

Author Information
Michael E. Casey is author of the blog LibraryCrunch and Division Director of Technology Services for Gwinnett County Public Library (GCPL), Lawrenceville, GA. Laura C. Savastinuk is an Assistant Branch Manager for GCPL

Posted in Web 2.0 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Defining Web 2.0

Posted by Mlungisi Dlamini on April 21, 2009

A tag cloud presenting Web 2.0 themes

A tag cloud presenting Web 2.0 themes

The term “Web 2.0” refers to a perceived second generation of web development and design, that aims to facilitate communication, secure information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. Web 2.0 concepts have led to the development and evolution of web-based communities, hosted services, and applications; such as social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies.

The term was first used by Dale Dougherty and Craig Cline and shortly after became notable after the O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 conference in 2004.[1][2] Although the term suggests a new version of the World Wide Web, it does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but rather 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 a platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.[3] ”

O’Reilly has noted that the “2.0″ refers to the historical context of web businesses “coming back” after the 2001 collapse of the dot-com bubble, in addition to the distinguishing characteristics of the projects that survived the bust or thrived thereafter.[4]

Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, has questioned whether one can use the term in any meaningful way, since many of the technological components of Web 2.0 have existed since the early days of the Web.[5][6]

 

Definition

Web 2.0 encapsulates the idea of the proliferation of interconnectivity and interactivity of web-delivered content. Tim O’Reilly regards Web 2.0 as the way that business embraces the strengths of the web and uses it as a platform. O’Reilly considers that Eric Schmidt‘s abridged slogan, don’t fight the Internet, encompasses the essence of Web 2.0 — building applications and services around the unique features of the Internet, as opposed to expecting the Internet to suit as a platform (effectively “fighting the Internet”).

In the opening talk of the first Web 2.0 conference, O’Reilly and John Battelle summarized what they saw as the themes of Web 2.0. They argued that the web had become a platform, with software above the level of a single device, leveraging the power of “The Long Tail,” and with data as a driving force. According to O’Reilly and Battelle, an architecture of participation where users can contribute website content creates network effects. Web 2.0 technologies tend to foster innovation in the assembly of systems and sites composed by pulling together features from distributed, independent developers. (This could be seen as a kind of “open source” or possible “Agile” development process, consistent with an end to the traditional software adoption cycle, typified by the so-called “perpetual beta“.)

Web 2.0 technology encourages lightweight business models enabled by syndication of content and of service and by ease of picking-up by early adopters.[7]

O’Reilly provided examples of companies or products that embody these principles in his description of his four levels in the hierarchy of Web 2.0 sites:

  • Level-3 applications, the most “Web 2.0″-oriented, exist only on the Internet, deriving their effectiveness from the inter-human connections and from the network effects that Web 2.0 makes possible, and growing in effectiveness in proportion as people make more use of them. O’Reilly gave eBay, Craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype, dodgeball, and AdSense as examples.
  • Level-2 applications can operate offline but gain advantages from going online. O’Reilly cited Flickr, which benefits from its shared photo-database and from its community-generated tag database.
  • Level-1 applications operate offline but gain features online. O’Reilly pointed to Writely (now Google Docs & Spreadsheets) and iTunes (because of its music-store portion).
  • Level-0 applications work as well offline as online. O’Reilly gave the examples of MapQuest, Yahoo! Local, and Google Maps (mapping-applications using contributions from users to advantage could rank as “level 2″, like Google Earth). In addition, Gmail.

 

Characteristics

Flickr, A Web 2.0 web site that allows users to upload and share photos

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.[2] Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site and exercise control over that data.[8][2] These sites may have an “Architecture of participation” that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.[2][1] This stands in contrast to traditional websites, the sort that 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[2][1] and similar client-side interactivity frameworks, or full client-server application frameworks such as OpenLaszlo, Flex, and the ZK framework.[8][2].

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”[9] 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.[10] According to Best,[11] the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, web standards and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom[12] and collective intelligence[13] by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0.

 

Technology overview

The sometimes complex and continually evolving technology infrastructure of Web 2.0 includes server-software, content-syndication, messaging-protocols, standards-oriented browsers with plugins and extensions, and various client-applications. The differing, yet complementary approaches of such elements provide Web 2.0 sites with information-storage, creation, and dissemination challenges and capabilities that go beyond what the public formerly expected in the environment of the so-called “Web 1.0″.

Web 2.0 websites typically include some of the following features/techniques. Andrew McAfee used the acronym SLATES to refer to them:

Search
the ease of finding information through keyword search which makes the platform valuable.
Links
guide to important pieces of information. The best pages are the most frequently linked to.
Authoring
the ability to create constantly updating content over a platform that is shifted from being the creation of a few to being the constantly updated, interlinked work. In wikis, the content is iterative in the sense that the people undo and redo each other’s work. In blogs, content is cumulative in that posts and comments of individuals are accumulated over time.
Tags
categorization of content by creating tags that are simple, one-word descriptions to facilitate searching and avoid rigid, pre-made categories.
Extensions
automation of some of the work and pattern matching by using algorithms e.g. amazon.com recommendations.
Signals
the use of RSS (Really Simple Syndication) technology to notify users with any changes of the content by sending e-mails to them.”[14]

 

Usage

 

Government 2.0

Web 2.0 initiatives are being employed within the public sector, giving more currency to the term Government 2.0. For instance, Web 2.0 websites such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have helped in providing a feasible way for citizens to connect with higher government officials, which was otherwise nearly impossible. Direct interaction of higher government authorities with citizens is replacing the age-old ‘single-sided communication’ with evolved and more public interaction methodologies.[15]

 

Higher education

Universities are using Web 2.0 in order to reach out and engage with Generation Y and other prospective students according to recent reports.[16] Examples of this are: social networking websites – YouTube, MySpace, Facebook, Youmeo, Twitter and Flickr; upgrading institutions’ websites in Generation Y-friendly ways (e.g., stand-alone micro-websites with minimal navigation); and virtual learning environments such as Moodle enable prospective students to log on and ask questions.[clarification needed]

In addition to free social networking websites, schools have contracted with companies that provide many of the same services as MySpace and Facebook, but can integrate with their existing database. Companies such as Harris Connect, iModules, and Publishing Concepts have developed alumni online community software packages that provide schools with a way to communicate to their alumni and allow alumni to communicate with each other in a safe, secure environment.

 

Public diplomacy

Web 2.0 initiatives have been employed in public diplomacy for the Israeli government. The country is believed to be the first to have its own official blog,[17] MySpace page,[18] YouTube channel,[19] Facebook page[20] and a political blog.[21] The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs started the country’s video blog as well as its political blog.[21] The Foreign Ministry also held a microblogging press conference via Twitter about its war with Hamas, with Consul David Saranga answering live questions from a worldwide public in common text-messaging abbreviations.[22] The questions and answers were later posted on IsraelPolitik, the country’s official political blog.[23]

 

Social Work 2.0

Social work 2.0 represents the use of interactive web technologies in the delivery of social services. The term first appeared in press in 2008. [24] In March, 2009, the New Social Worker Online started a technology blog called Social Work 2.0.[25] Social workers use web 2.0 technologies for clinical practice, community organizing and administrative and policy functions. Social workers use chat programs to provide real-time (synchronous) online therapy, or e-therapy. [26] Web 2.0 technologies also allow for self-directed treatment through web-based modules. Self-directed treatments, such as Australia’s MoodGYM [27], are based on a CBT model and have demonstrated success in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety.[28] Self-directed treatments have the potential to provide services to thousands of people at minimal costs.[29] Community organizers uses interactive web technologies to rally constituents and identify services in traditionally disadvantaged neighborhoods. For example, the National Association of Social Workers provides updates on legislative actions via Twitter.[30] Geographical Information Systems (GIS) technologies can be used to analyze information about specific geographical regions, such as neighborhoods, zip codes, cities or counties. Advocacy groups can analyze campaign demographics to improve voter participation on key social services issues. Consumer rights advocates can use GIS to identify where services are distributed in an area in order to better advocate for access to service and improved service delivery. The use of web-based technologies is not without its problems for social work. Social workers are state regulated, leading to concerns about providing services over the internet to people in different states. Current licensure laws do not apply to services provided outside of the licensing state. Clients from one state who wish to file a complaint or lawsuit against an e-therapist in another state are in a regulatory limbo. When a clinician in Pennsylvania provides services to a client in Texas, the question is, which state’s laws govern? [31]. Until licensing laws are updated to regulate out-of-state practice, social workers should assume that practicing beyond state borders violates their license.[32] Despite these limitations, the use of Web 2.0 technologies provides an important advance in social service delivery.

 

Health 2.0

Main article: Health 2.0

Web 2.0 is very useful in healthcare as well. Healthcare improvement requires patients’ cognitive, behavioral, and environmental changes, and patients’ involvement likely triggers internal motivation which is more effective than external enforcements (Anderson, Funnell, & Arnold, 1996). While healthcare professionals are experts on disease management, patients are experts on their own lives and surroundings. Thus, it is crucial that patients are actively involved and engaged in their own healthcare through self-care. The Internet and web 2.0 technology enables and supports patient self-care.

 

Web-based applications and desktops

Ajax has prompted the development of websites that mimic desktop applications, such as word processing, the spreadsheet, and slide-show presentation. WYSIWYG wiki sites replicate many features of PC authoring applications. Still other sites perform collaboration and project management functions. In 2006 Google, Inc. acquired one of the best-known sites of this broad class, Writely.[33]

Several browser-based “operating systems” have emerged, including EyeOS[34] and YouOS.[35] Although coined as such, many of these services function less like a traditional operating system and more as an application platform. They mimic the user experience of desktop operating-systems, offering features and applications similar to a PC environment, as well as the added ability of being able to run within any modern browser.

Numerous web-based application services appeared during the dot-com bubble of 1997–2001 and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers. In 2005, WebEx acquired one of the better-known of these, Intranets.com, for USD45 million.[36]

 

Internet applications

Main article: Rich Internet application

 

XML and RSS

Advocates of “Web 2.0″ may regard syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 feature, involving as it does standardized protocols, which permit end-users to make use of a site’s data in another context (such as another website, a browser plugin, or a separate desktop application). Protocols which permit syndication include RSS (Really Simple Syndication — also known as “web syndication”), RDF (as in RSS 1.1), and Atom, all of them XML-based formats. Observers have started to refer to these technologies as “Web feed” as the usability of Web 2.0 evolves and the more user-friendly Feeds icon supplants the RSS icon.

Specialized protocols

Specialized protocols such as FOAF and XFN (both for social networking) extend the functionality of sites or permit end-users to interact without centralized websites.

 

Web APIs

Machine-based interaction, a common feature of Web 2.0 sites, uses two main approaches to Web APIs, which allow web-based access to data and functions: REST and SOAP.

  1. REST (Representational State Transfer) Web APIs use HTTP alone to interact, with XML (eXtensible Markup Language) or JSON payloads;
  2. SOAP involves POSTing more elaborate XML messages and requests to a server that may contain quite complex, but pre-defined, instructions for the server to follow.

Often servers use proprietary APIs, but standard APIs (for example, for posting to a blog or notifying a blog update) have also come into wide use. Most communications through APIs involve XML or JSON payloads.

See also Web Services Description Language (WSDL) (the standard way of publishing a SOAP API) and this list of Web Service specifications.

 

Economics

Analysis of the economic implications of “Web 2.0″ applications and loosely-associated technologies such as wikis, blogs, social-networking, open-source, open-content, file-sharing, peer-production, etc. has also gained scientific attention. This area of research investigates the implications Web 2.0 has for an economy and the principles underlying the economy of Web 2.0.

Cass Sunstein’s book “Infotopia” discussed the Hayekian nature of collaborative production, characterized by decentralized decision-making, directed by (often non-monetary) prices rather than central planners in business or government.

Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams argue in their book Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (2006) that the economy of “the new web” depends on mass collaboration. Tapscott and Williams regard it as important for new media companies to find ways of how to make profit with the help of Web 2.0.[citation needed] The prospective Internet-based economy that they term “Wikinomics” would depend on the principles of openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally. They identify seven Web 2.0 business-models (peer pioneers, ideagoras, prosumers, new Alexandrians, platforms for participation, global plantfloor, wiki workplace).[citation needed]

Organizations could make use of these principles and models in order to prosper with the help of Web 2.0-like applications: “Companies can design and assemble products with their customers, and in some cases customers can do the majority of the value creation”.[37] “In each instance the traditionally passive buyers of editorial and advertising take active, participatory roles in value creation.”[38] Tapscott and Williams suggest business strategies as “models where masses of consumers, employees, suppliers, business partners, and even competitors cocreate value in the absence of direct managerial control”.[39] Tapscott and Williams see the outcome as an economic democracy.

Some other views in the scientific debate agree with Tapscott and Williams that value-creation increasingly depends on harnessing open source/content, networking, sharing, and peering, but disagree that this will result in an economic democracy, predicting a subtle form and deepening of exploitation, in which Internet-based global outsourcing reduces labor-costs by transferring jobs from workers in wealthy nations to workers in poor nations. In such a view, the economic implications of a new web might include on the one hand the emergence of new business-models based on global outsourcing, whereas on the other hand non-commercial online platforms could undermine profit-making and anticipate a co-operative economy. For example, Tiziana Terranova speaks of “free labor” (performed without payment) in the case where prosumers produce surplus value in the circulation-sphere of the cultural industries.[40]

Some examples of Web 2.0 business models that attempt to generate revenues in online shopping and online marketplaces are referred to as social commerce and social shopping. Social commerce involves user-generated marketplaces where individuals can set up online shops and link their shops in a networked marketplace, drawing on concepts of electronic commerce and social networking. Social shopping involves customers interacting with each other while shopping, typically online, and often in a social network environment. This involvement of customers in a collaborative business model is also known as customer involvement management (CIM). Academic research on the economic value implications of social commerce and having sellers in online marketplaces link to each others’ shops has been conducted by researchers in the business school at Columbia University.[41]

 

Criticism

The criticism exists that “Web 2.0″ does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web at all, but merely continues to use so-called “Web 1.0″ technologies and concepts. Techniques such as AJAX do not replace underlying protocols like HTTP, but add an additional layer of abstraction on top of them. Many of the ideas of Web 2.0 had already been featured in implementations on networked systems well before the term “Web 2.0″ emerged. Amazon.com, for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its launch in 1995, in a form of self-publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002.[42] Previous developments also came from research in computer-supported collaborative learning and computer-supported cooperative work and from established products like Lotus Notes and Lotus Domino.

In a podcast interview, Tim Berners-Lee described the term “Web 2.0″ as a “piece of jargon”:

“Nobody really knows what it means…If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.”[5]

Other criticism has included the term “a second bubble” (referring to the Dot-com bubble of circa 1995–2001), suggesting that too many Web 2.0 companies attempt to develop the same product with a lack of business models. The Economist has written of “Bubble 2.0″.[43] Venture capitalist Josh Kopelman noted that Web 2.0 had excited only 530,651 people (the number of subscribers at that time to TechCrunch, a Weblog covering Web 2.0 matters), too few users to make them an economically viable target for consumer applications.[44] Although Bruce Sterling reports he’s a fan of Web 2.0, he thinks it is now dead as a rallying concept.[45]

Critics have cited the language used to describe the hype cycle of Web 2.0[46] as an example of Techno-utopianist rhetoric.[47] Web 2.0 is not the first example of communication creating a false, hyper-inflated sense of the value of technology and its impact on culture. The dot com boom and subsequent bust in 2000 was a culmination of rhetoric of the technological sublime in terms that would later make their way into Web 2.0 jargon. Indeed, several years before the dot com stock market crash the then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan described the run up of stock values as irrational exuberance. Shortly before the crash of 2000 a book by Shiller, Robert J. Irrational Exuberance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. was released detailing the overly optimistic euphoria of the dot com industry.

 

Trademark

In November 2004, CMP Media applied to the USPTO for a service mark on the use of the term “WEB 2.0″ for live events.[48] On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a cease-and-desist demand to the Irish non-profit organization IT@Cork on May 24, 2006,[49] but retracted it two days later.[50] The “WEB 2.0″ service mark registration passed final PTO Examining Attorney review on May 10, 2006, and was registered on June 27, 2006.[48] The European Union application (application number 004972212, which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland) remains currently[update] pending after its filing on March 23, 2006.

 

See also

Sister project Wikiversity has learning materials about Web 2.0

 

References

  1. ^ a b c Paul Graham (November 2005). “Web 2.0″. http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html. Retrieved on 2006-08-02. “”I first heard the phrase ‘Web 2.0′ in the name of the Web 2.0 conference in 2004.”" 
  2. ^ a b c d e f Tim O’Reilly (2005-09-30). “What Is Web 2.0″. O’Reilly Network. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html. Retrieved on 2006-08-06. 
  3. ^ Tim O’Reilly (2006-12-10). “Web 2.0 Compact Definition: Trying Again”. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web_20_compact.html. Retrieved on 2007-01-20. 
  4. ^ Tim O’Reilly On The Future Of Social Media, Talk of the Nation Science Friday. 19 Dec 2008.
  5. ^ a b “developerWorks Interviews: Tim Berners-Lee”. 2006-07-28. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206txt.html. Retrieved on 2007-02-07. 
  6. ^ Nate Anderson (2006-09-01). “Tim Berners-Lee on Web 2.0: “nobody even knows what it means”". arstechnica.com. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060901-7650.html. Retrieved on 2006-09-05. 
  7. ^ “Web 2.0 Conference”. conferences.oreillynet.com. http://conferences.oreillynet.com/pub/w/32/presentations.html. Retrieved on 2007-11-08. 
  8. ^ a b Dion Hinchcliffe (2006-04-02). “The State of Web 2.0″. Web Services Journal. http://web2.wsj2.com/the_state_of_web_20.htm. Retrieved on 2006-08-06. 
  9. ^ Bart Decrem (2006-06-13). “Introducing Flock Beta 1″. Flock official blog. http://www.flock.com/node/4500. Retrieved on 2007-01-13. 
  10. ^ Gerald Marwell and Ruth E. Ames: “Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. I. Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the Free-Rider Problem”. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84, No. 6 (May, 1979), pp. 1335-1360
  11. ^ Best, D., 2006. Web 2.0 Next Big Thing or Next Big Internet Bubble? Lecture Web Information Systems. Techni sche Universiteit Eindhoven.
  12. ^ Greenmeier, Larry and Gaudin, Sharon. “Amid The Rush To Web 2.0, Some Words Of Warning — Web 2.0 — InformationWeek”. www.informationweek.com. http://www.informationweek.com/news/management/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=EWRPGLVJ53OW2QSNDLPCKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=199702353&_requestid=494050. Retrieved on 2008-04-04. 
  13. ^ O’Reilly, T., 2005. What is Web 2.0. Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, 30, p.2005
  14. ^ McAfee, A. (2006). Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration. MIT Sloan Management review. Vol. 47, No. 3, p. 21-28.
  15. ^ Eggers, William D. (2005). Government 2.0: Using Technology to Improve Education, Cut Red Tape, Reduce Gridlock, and Enhance Democracy. Lanham MD, U.S.A.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.. ISBN 978-0742541757. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/government2.0/. 
  16. ^ http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24208226-12332,00.html
  17. ^ Israel Video Blog aims to show the world ‘the beautiful face of real Israel’, Ynet, February 24, 2008.
  18. ^ Israel seeks friends through MySpace page, Bobby Johnson, The Guardian, March 23, 2007.
  19. ^ Israel uses YouTube, Twitter to share its point of view, CNN, December 31, 2008
  20. ^ Israel’s New York Consulate launches Facebook page, Ynet, December 14, 2007.
  21. ^ a b Latest PR venture of Israel’s diplomatic mission in New York attracts large Arab audience, Ynet, June 21, 2007.
  22. ^ Battlefront Twitter, HAVIV RETTIG GUR, The Jerusalem Post, December 30, 2008.
  23. ^ The Toughest Q’s Answered in the Briefest Tweets, Noam Cohen, The New York Times, January 3, 2009; accessed January 5, 2009.
  24. ^ Singer, Jonathan B. (2009). The Role and Regulations for Technology in Social Work Practice and E-Therapy: Social Work 2.0. In A. R. Roberts (Ed).. New York, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195369373. http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/SocialWork/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTM2OTM3Mw==. 
  25. ^ New Social Worker Online Technology & Social Work Blog
  26. ^ Jedlicka, D., & Jennings, G. (2001). Marital therapy on the internet. Journal of Technology in Counseling, 2, from http://jtc.colstate.edu/vol2_1/Marital.htm
  27. ^ MoodGYM
  28. ^ Christensen, H., Griffiths, K. M., & Jorm, A. F. (2004). Delivering interventions for depression by using the internet: Randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 328(7434), 265
  29. ^ Bell, V. (2007). Online information, extreme communities and internet therapy: Is the internet good for our mental health? . Journal of Mental Health, 16, 445-457.
  30. ^ National Association of Social Workers Official Twitter
  31. ^ McCarty, D., & Clancy, C. (2002). Telehealth: Implications for social work practice. Social Work, 47(2), 153-161.
  32. ^ Kanani, K., & Regehr, C. (2003). Clinical, ethical, and legal issues in e-therapy. Families in Society, 84(2), 155-162
  33. ^ “Google buys Web word-processing technology”. www.news.com. http://www.news.com/2100-1032_3-6048136.html. Retrieved on 2007-12-12. 
  34. ^ “Can eyeOS Succeed Where Desktop.com Failed?”. www.techcrunch.com. http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/11/27/eyeos-open-source-webos-for-the-masses/. Retrieved on 2007-12-12. 
  35. ^ “Tech Beat Hey YouOS! – BusinessWeek”. www.businessweek.com. http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2006/03/hey_youos.html. Retrieved on 2007-12-12. 
  36. ^ “PC World – WebEx Snaps Up Intranets.com”. www.pcworld.com. http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,122068-page,1/article.html. Retrieved on 2007-12-12. 
  37. ^ Tapscott, Don and Anthony D. Williams. 2007. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Penguin. pp. 289sq.
  38. ^ Tapscott, Don and Anthony D. Williams. 2007. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Penguin. p. 14.
  39. ^ Tapscott, Don and Anthony D. Williams. 2007. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. New York: Penguin. p. 55.
  40. ^ Terranova, Tiziana. 2000. “Free Labor: Producing Culture for the Digital Economy”. Social Text 18(2): 33-57.
  41. ^ “Deriving Value from Social Commerce Networks.” Stephen, A.T. and Toubia, O. Columbia University.
  42. ^ Tim O’Reilly (2002-06-18). “Amazon Web Services API”. O’Reilly Network. http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1707?wlg=yes. Retrieved on 2006-05-27. 
  43. ^ “Bubble 2.0″. The Economist. 2005-12-22. http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_QQNVDDS. Retrieved on 2006-12-20. 
  44. ^ Josh Kopelman (2006-05-11). “53,651″. Redeye VC. http://redeye.firstround.com/2006/05/53651.html. Retrieved on 2006-12-21. 
  45. ^ “”Bruce Sterling presenta il web 2.0″”. “LASTAMPA.it”. http://www.lastampa.it/multimedia/multimedia.asp?p=1&IDmsezione=29&IDalbum=8558&tipo=VIDEO#mpos. 
  46. ^ “”Gartner 2006 Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle”. http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=495475. 
  47. ^ “”Critical Perspectives on Web 2.0,” Special issue of First Monday, 13(3), 2008.”. http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/issue/view/263/showToc. 
  48. ^ a b USPTO serial number 78322306
  49. ^ “O’Reilly and CMP Exercise Trademark on ‘Web 2.0′”. Slashdot. 2006-05-26. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/26/1238245. Retrieved on 2006-05-27. 
  50. ^ Nathan Torkington (2006-05-26). “O’Reilly’s coverage of Web 2.0 as a service mark”. O’Reilly Radar. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/more_on_our_web_20_service_mar.html. Retrieved on 2006-06-01. 

 

External links

 

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

<!–

Edit this Wikipedia entry

–><!–

Donate to Wikimedia

–>

Donate to Wikimedia

 

Sponsored Links
New Web 2.0 Whitepaper
5 ways your business can benefit from Web 2.0 download PDF here. 
www.trueclarity.co.uk
Value website hosting
3000MB Web space and .com or .co.uk domain free for 1 yr. Setup only £9 
www.One.com

Copyrights:

Answers Corporation Blogs. © 1999-2009 by Answers Corporation. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Web 2.0″.  Read more

 

<!–

–>

Related answers

» More

 
Answer these

» More

Shopping

Shop

Enter a keyword
( browse )

Choose a category
All CategoriesBooksCarsClothing & AccessoriesComputers & SoftwareElectronicsFlower & GiftsHealth & BeautyHome & GardenJewelry & WatchesKids & FamilyMoviesMusicOfficeSports & OutdoorsVideo Games

 

<!–

 

–>

Posted in Web 2.0 | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.