A SEMINAR REPORT
in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,
AUGUST 2008Page 2
DIVISION OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Certified that this is a bonafide record of the seminars entitled
done by the following student
of the VII
semester,Computer Science and Engineering in the year 2008 in
partial fulfillment of the requirements to the award of Degree of Bachelor of
Technology in Computer Science and Engineering of Cochin University of
Science and Technology.
Mr. Pramod Pavithran
Dr.David Peter S
Head of the Department
At the outset , I thank the lord almighty for giving me the grace , strength and
hope to make my endeavor a success . I express my deep felt gratitude to Dr .David
Peter S , Head Of the Division , Computer Science & Engineering for his constant
encouragement . I am profoundly grateful to Mr. Pramod Pavithran, Reader , Division Of
Computer Science , seminars guide for his valuable guidance , support , suggestions and
encouragement . Furthermore I would like to thank all others especially my parents
and numerous friends . My seminars would not have been a success without the
inspiration , valuable suggestions and moral support from them throughout its course.
SANJU NAIRPage 4
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF SYMBOLS
WEB 2.0 PHILOSOPHY
2.1 Web as a Platform
2.2 Democratization of Web
2.3 Distributing Information
4.3 Semantic Web
WEB 2.0 APPLICATIONS
LIST OF FIGURES
The O'Reilly Media home page
Amazon.com home page
Technorati home page
Web 2.0 Summit 2007 page on C-Net
World Book Encyclopedia home page
Connecting the world, Web 3.0 approach
Web 2.0 as a Buzzword
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Chief Executive Officer
Application Progamming Interface
Really Simple Syndication
World Wide Web
HyperText Markup Language
Graphics Interchange Format
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 1Page 9
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-
The O'Reilly Media Web site is a prime example of Web 2.0 at work.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 2Page 10
Figure 1.1:- The O'Reilly Media home page.
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 donâ„¢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
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 â€œ all should be viewed as essential
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 3Page 11
attributes of Web 2.0. In fact web 1.0 came into existence after the evolution of web
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 4Page 12
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 5Page 13
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 6Page 14
decide what books to buy. Amazon's members were helping to shape the browsing
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.
Figure 2.1:- Amazon.com home page
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 7Page 15
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 8Page 16
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 9Page 17
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.
Figure 2.2:- Technorati home page
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 10Page 18
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 11Page 19
3. WEB 1.0
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 12Page 20
introduced during the first browser war.
GIF buttons, typically 88x31 pixels promoting web browsers and other
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
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
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 13Page 21
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.
Figure 3.1:- Web 2.0 Summit 2007 page on C-Net
Ironically, the Web page for the 2007 Web 2.0 summit works more like a
Web 1.0 page.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 14Page 22
Here's a collection of strategies O'Reilly considers to be part of the Web 1.0
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 15Page 23
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 16Page 24
pages for these acts of vandalism, there's no guarantee that the information on an entry
will be accurate on any given day.
Figure 3.2:- Wikipedia page
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 17Page 25
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.
Figure 3.3:- World Book Encyclopedia home page.
World Book Encyclopedia's Web page is an example of a Web 1.0
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 18Page 26
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 19Page 27
4. WEB 3.0
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 20Page 28
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 21Page 29
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 22Page 30
Web 3.0 will likely plug into your individual tastes and browsing habits.
Figure 4.1:- Connecting the World, Web 3.0 approach.
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 23Page 31
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 24Page 32
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 25Page 33
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 26Page 34
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
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
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 27Page 35
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.
Figure 5.1:- Web 2.0 as a Buzzword.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 28Page 36
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
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 29Page 37
6. WEB 2.0 APPLICATIONS
Figure 6.1:- Netvibes.com
Figure 6.2:- Wikimapia.com
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 30Page 38
Figure 6.3:- Writely.com
Figure 6.4:- Backpackit.com
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 31Page 39
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
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.
Division Of Computer Science ,S.O,.E , CUSAT 32Page 40
Graham, Paul. "Web 2.0." PaulGraham.com. November, 2005.
O'Reilly, Tim. "What is Web 2.0."
O'Reilly Media. September 30, 2005.
Wikipedia.com, Web 2.0., Web 1.0.
HowStuffsWork.com, How Web 2.0 works".