1. What is Web 2.0? Tsinghua University April 2008 Bebo White bebo@slac.stanford.edu

2. 2 What is Web 2.0? (Andy Budd) “Putting The ‘We’ in Web” ‘…the Living Web’ ---Newsweek, 4/3/2006

3. 3 What Web 2.0 is Not The Semantic Web (though there are some crossovers) The Semantic Web (though there are some crossovers) A new collection of technologies (though there are new applications of existing technologies) A new collection of technologies (though there are new applications of existing technologies) Just blogging, wikis, AJAX, mashups,and RSS Just blogging, wikis, AJAX, mashups,and RSS

4. 4 Web 2.0 is Happening Logos of start-ups “claiming” to be Web 2.0

5. 5 Web 2.0 By Example Web 1.0Web 2.0 Personal Web SitesBlogs Britannica OnlineWikipedia Content Management Systems Wikis Directories (Taxonomy)Tagging (“Folksonomy”) Screen ScrapingWeb Services Etc. (from Tim O’Reilly)

6. 6 Web 2.0 Drivers - Technology Computing power Computing power Still doubling every 18 months Still doubling every 18 months PC-based data centers PC-based data centers Connectivity Connectivity Low cost, broad reach Internet Low cost, broad reach Internet Wireless, broadband access Wireless, broadband access Device proliferation Device proliferation PDAs, cell phones, etc. PDAs, cell phones, etc. Towards a digital devices decade Towards a digital devices decade Internet standards Internet standards XML-based integration XML-based integration User Interface User Interface Many possibilities Many possibilities

7. 7 Web 2.0 Drivers - Environmental The “dot-com” collapse forced a Web re- examination The “dot-com” collapse forced a Web re- examination The “long tail” – the collective power of small sites that make up the bulk of the Web’s content The “long tail” – the collective power of small sites that make up the bulk of the Web’s content The Web reached a critical mass of The Web reached a critical mass of (Good) information content sources (Good) information content sources Use (and desire for reuse) Use (and desire for reuse) Trust Trust Web users developed an expectation of fulfillment Web users developed an expectation of fulfillment

8. 8 So, What is Web 2.0? (1/2) Definition is still evolving… Definition is still evolving… A marketing term, a buzzword, but moreover an ATTITUDE A marketing term, a buzzword, but moreover an ATTITUDE Shifts the focus to the user of the information, not the creator of the information Shifts the focus to the user of the information, not the creator of the information Information moves “beyond” Web sites Information moves “beyond” Web sites Information has properties and these properties follow each other and find relationships Information has properties and these properties follow each other and find relationships Information comes to users as they move around Information comes to users as they move around

9. 9 So, What is Web 2.0? (2/2) Information is broken up into “microcontent” units that can be distributed over many domains Information is broken up into “microcontent” units that can be distributed over many domains Interaction is no longer limited to (X)HTML Interaction is no longer limited to (X)HTML Users are able to control how information is categorized and manipulated Users are able to control how information is categorized and manipulated User agent becomes a “fat” rather than “thin” client User agent becomes a “fat” rather than “thin” client Requires a new set of tools to aggregate and remix microcontent in new and useful ways Requires a new set of tools to aggregate and remix microcontent in new and useful ways

10. 10 Is It Natural Evolution? Web 1.0 Semantic Web Web 2.0 Data-centric User-centric Web 1.0 That will ultimately converge?

11. 11 Basic Paradigm Shifts (1/2) Web 1.0Web 2.0 GovernanceTop downBottom Up CommunicationsPeople to MachineMachine to Machine and People to People Information Discovery Search and BrowsePublish and Subscribe Information Retrieval TransactionalRelationships Information Aggregation Portals, Commercial Aggregators Micro-Aggregation

12. 12 Basic Paradigm Shifts (2/2) Web 1.0Web 2.0 Marketing, SellingPush, ContextualConversational, Personal Content ControlPublishers, Aggregators Content Authors Content StructureDocuments, PagesTagged Objects ApplicationsClosed, ProprietaryOpen, Standards- based TechnologyHTML, Solaris, Oracle XML, AJAX, RSS, PHP, MySQL, XQuery

13. 13 Five Characteristics of Web 2.0 Infrastructure “Web as Platform” – “A platform beats an application every time” “Web as Platform” – “A platform beats an application every time” Web as “Point of Presence” – “visiting vs. immersion” Web as “Point of Presence” – “visiting vs. immersion” Microcontent-based – open, decentralized, bottom-up, and self-organizing infrastructure Microcontent-based – open, decentralized, bottom-up, and self-organizing infrastructure 2 nd Order Content or Metacontent – content reuse, out of context 2 nd Order Content or Metacontent – content reuse, out of context A Metaweb – to support the dream of the Semantic Web A Metaweb – to support the dream of the Semantic Web

14. 14 The Big Ideas of Web 2.0 Fresh, useful data is the core Fresh, useful data is the core The ability for other parties to manipulate that data The ability for other parties to manipulate that data “Living” applications that can be easily adapted “Living” applications that can be easily adapted Harnessing the collective experience Harnessing the collective experience “The Web as a platform,” independent of user platform “The Web as a platform,” independent of user platform Primary focus of participation, rather than publishing Primary focus of participation, rather than publishing Trusting of users to provide reliable content Trusting of users to provide reliable content

15. 15 What is Web 2.0 Again? (1/2) “Web 2.0 is a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet – a more mature, distinctive medium characterized by user participation, openness, and network effects” ----”Web 2.0, Principles and Practices,” O’Reilly Media

16. 16 What is Web 2.0 Again? (2/2) “The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research. It's not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The new Web is a very different thing. It's a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it's really a revolution.” ---TIME magazine, 12/27/06

17. 17 “Implications of Web 2.0 on Web Information Systems”

18. WIS Practices (1/2) Web technology can be used as front-end, e.g. application is available on the Web (or Intranet) via a client/browser Web technology can be used as front-end, e.g. application is available on the Web (or Intranet) via a client/browser Enables easy use and maintenance of (personalized) end- user access Enables easy use and maintenance of (personalized) end- user access Web metaphor is appealing for end-users Web metaphor is appealing for end-users Requires different techniques for engineering the system’s interfaces Requires different techniques for engineering the system’s interfaces

19. WIS Practices (2/2) Web technology can also be used in back-end of information system Web technology can also be used in back-end of information system Organize (connect) the data inside the system using Web technology Organize (connect) the data inside the system using Web technology Use Web as provider of data Use Web as provider of data Typically highly volatile information (distributed and heterogeneous) Typically highly volatile information (distributed and heterogeneous) Requires different techniques for engineering the implementation Requires different techniques for engineering the implementation

20. 20 Web 2.0 and Social Networking (1/2) Not to be confused with “social engineering!” Not to be confused with “social engineering!” A group launches a highly interactive service based on common interests between users A group launches a highly interactive service based on common interests between users Easy to use communications tools detail and promote those interests to others Easy to use communications tools detail and promote those interests to others The group is expanded by invitation or “virally” The group is expanded by invitation or “virally” B2C, C2C, B2B B2C, C2C, B2B Networks of “credibility” Networks of “credibility” Reinforces the validity of the theory of “six degrees of separation” Reinforces the validity of the theory of “six degrees of separation”

21. 21 Web 2.0 and Social Networking (2/2) People (not just Websites) can/have become entities on the Internet People (not just Websites) can/have become entities on the Internet It’s not just people using data, but people developing capabilities It’s not just people using data, but people developing capabilities Provide a rich user experience/interface Provide a rich user experience/interface Blogs – combined with aggregation tools Blogs – combined with aggregation tools Geographical mapping Geographical mapping Comment systems Comment systems Folksonomies Folksonomies etc., etc. etc., etc.

22. 22 “Web 2.0 Applications Address Basic Group Interactions”

23. 23 LinkedIn is a Business Contact Social Network

24. 24 ChipIn is a Fundraising Social Network

25. 25 Flickr is a Photo-Sharing Social Network Flickr is a Photo-Sharing Social Network

26. 26 Eventful is a Calendar/Announcement Social Network

27. 27 Del.icio.us is a Bookmark-Sharing Social Network Tags: Descriptive words applied by users to links. Tags are searchable My Tags: Words I’ve used to describe links in a way that makes sense to me

28. 28

29. 29

30. 30

31. 31

32. 32 Web 2.0 By Example - Again Web 1.0Web 2.0 Personal Web SitesBlogs Britannica OnlineWikipedia Content Management Systems Wikis Directories (Taxonomy)Tagging (“Folksonomy”) Screen ScrapingWeb Services Etc. (from Tim O’Reilly)

33. 33 User Response to Blogs

34. 34 Wikipedia A Collaborative Dictionary being edited in real time by anyone. Everyone becomes an author, an editor, and a publisher. “Wikipedia Risks” – Communications of the ACM, December 2005

35. 35

36. 36 OhmyNews 41,000 “citizen reporters” 41,000 “citizen reporters” 60 “professional reporters and editors” 60 “professional reporters and editors” 700,000 repeat visitors per day 700,000 repeat visitors per day

37. 37 “No journalism organization, no matter how big it is, knows as much about a particular topic as the people who read or listen to it. …That doesn’t mean that there is no longer a role for journalists – there is a huge role. But in a world that is moving away from a lecture to a conversation, it makes sense for there to be more participation from the audience.” ---Dan Gillmor, We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People

38. 38 Web 2.0 and Copyright/Copyleft User focus builds upon User focus builds upon The ability for legal copying, modification, sharing The ability for legal copying, modification, sharing Creative Commons Creative Commons GNU Free Documentation License GNU Free Documentation License

39. 39 Key Element of Web 2.0 – Collective Intelligence An architecture of participation An architecture of participation Users add value Users add value An evolved Web perspective An evolved Web perspective Payment Payment Volunteering Volunteering Selfish interests build collective value as an automatic byproduct Selfish interests build collective value as an automatic byproduct User ratings User ratings User tagging (lightweight) User tagging (lightweight)

40. 40 User Tagging (1/3) Folksonomy – alternative to Taxonomy – A style of collaborative categorization of Web sites using freely chosen keywords (tags) allowing for retrieval methods generated by user activity Folksonomy – alternative to Taxonomy – A style of collaborative categorization of Web sites using freely chosen keywords (tags) allowing for retrieval methods generated by user activity Grew out of user ratings Grew out of user ratings eBay eBay Amazon Amazon Becomes an active part of the content corpus Becomes an active part of the content corpus

41. 41 User Tagging (2/3)

42. 42 User Tagging (3/3) (Ref: XFN )

43. 43 Del.icio.us is a Tag-Sharing Network Tags: Descriptive words applied by users to links. Tags are searchable My Tags: Words I’ve used to describe links in a way that makes sense to me

44. “A folksonomy is an Internet-based information retrieval methodology consisting of collaboratively generated, open-ended labels that categorize content such as Web pages, online photographs, and Web links”. “A folksonomy is an Internet-based information retrieval methodology consisting of collaboratively generated, open-ended labels that categorize content such as Web pages, online photographs, and Web links”. Thomas Vander Wal Thomas Vander Wal The main difference from formal knowledge models like ontology: The main difference from formal knowledge models like ontology: Subjective view (community-based) Subjective view (community-based) Uncontrolled vocabulary Uncontrolled vocabulary Poor structure Poor structure Ontologies and Folksonomies

45. 45 Current Web 2.0 Practices (1/2) Database driven Rich interfaces Volatile/dynamic data

46. 46 Current Web 2.0 Practices (2/2) Questionable usability Questionable standardization Security/privacy/legal/ethical issues

47. 47 Web 2.0 for Developers (1/3) Write semantic markup (start using XML) Write semantic markup (start using XML) Write for content re-use Write for content re-use Start using Web Services (move away from place/site) – plays a role in all three evolutions of the Web Start using Web Services (move away from place/site) – plays a role in all three evolutions of the Web Start “re-mixing” content (think “when and what,” not “who or why”) Start “re-mixing” content (think “when and what,” not “who or why”) Accept emergent navigation and relevance (users are in control) Accept emergent navigation and relevance (users are in control)

48. 48 Web 2.0 for Developers (2/3) Let metadata be added over time (let social communities describe content) Let metadata be added over time (let social communities describe content) Become a programmer (in order to separate structure and style, designers need to become more like programmers) Become a programmer (in order to separate structure and style, designers need to become more like programmers) Allow the user to enter information as naturally as possible Allow the user to enter information as naturally as possible Taking account of device, context, specific writer, etc. Taking account of device, context, specific writer, etc.

49. 49 Web 2.0 for Developers (3/3) Capture what the user means at the most abstract level possible Capture what the user means at the most abstract level possible Make the information reusable by the same and other users Make the information reusable by the same and other users APIs to the data source APIs to the data source Independently of device, context, specific reader, etc. Independently of device, context, specific reader, etc.

50. 50 A Goal of Web 2.0 - A Rich User Experience Get the user to content they want Get the user to content they want Link the user to content they might want Link the user to content they might want Don’t tell the user how to find content Don’t tell the user how to find content Let the user decide how to use the content Let the user decide how to use the content Do all of the above quickly and efficiently Do all of the above quickly and efficiently

51. 51 Mashups – Programming for the Web This is made possible by accessible APIs fostering creativity

52. Is Arnetminer a Mashup? Collects data from different sources on the Web Collects data from different sources on the Web “Screen-scrapes” Web sites “Screen-scrapes” Web sites Combines results in a single application Combines results in a single application Gives greater meaning for the collected information Gives greater meaning for the collected information

55. 55 The Bias of Web 2.0 Bias towards an intelligent user Bias towards an intelligent user Specific information goal Specific information goal Knowledge of where to start Knowledge of where to start Specific fulfillment outcomes Specific fulfillment outcomes Bias towards “current” users Bias towards “current” users Expected level of sophistication Expected level of sophistication Expected level of vocabulary Expected level of vocabulary Cultural expectations Cultural expectations

56. 56 Summary: The Great Ideas Behind Web 2.0 Focus on users, not technologies Focus on users, not technologies Focus on utility, not functionality Focus on utility, not functionality Value delivery, not data Value delivery, not data Focus on agility, not reactivity Focus on agility, not reactivity Provide constant improvements Provide constant improvements Drive innovation by user (not consumer) satisfaction Drive innovation by user (not consumer) satisfaction

57. Remember: How Much of the Web is Hype? (1/2)

58. Remember: How Much of the Web is Hype? (2/2)

59. Thank You! Questions? Comments? bebo@slac.stanford.edu