Web 2.0英⽂介绍|⽤英语介绍Web 2.0
The phra Web 2.0 was created by O'Reilly Media to refer to a suppod cond generation of network-centric rvices available on the internet that let people collaborate and share information online in a new way - such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools and folksonomies. O'Reilly Media, in collaboration with MediaLive International, ud the phra as a title for a ries of conferences and since then it has become a popular, if ill-defined and often criticized, buzzword amongst the technical and marketing communities.
Introduction
With its allusion to the version numbers that commonly designate software upgrades, the phra "Web 2.0" trendily hints at an improved form of the World Wide Web, and the term has appeared in occasional u for veral years. The more explicit synonym "Participatory Web", emphasizing tools and platforms that enable the ur to tag, blog, comment, modify, augment, lect from, rank, and generally talk back to the contributions of other urs and the general world community has increasingly en u as an alternative phra. Some commentators regard reputation-bad public wikis, like Wikipedia, as pioneering examples of Web 2.0/Participatory Web technology.
O'Reilly Media and MediaLive International popularized the term Web 2.0 for a conference they hosted after Dale Dougherty mentioned it during a brainstorming ssion. Dougherty suggested that the Web was in a renaissance, with changing rules and evolving business models. The participants asmbled examples — "DoubleClick was Web 1.0; Google AdSen is Web 2.0. Ofoto is Web 1.0; Flickr is Web 2.0" — rather than definitions. Dougherty recruited John Battelle for a business perspective, and it became the first Web 2.0 Conference in October 2004. A cond annual conference was held in October 2005.打架的技巧
我落泪情绪零碎
In their first conference opening talk, O'Reilly and Battelle summarized key principles they believe characterize Web 2.0 applications: the Web as platform; data as the driving force; network effects created by an architecture of participation; innovation in asmbly of systems and sites compod by pulling together features from distributed, independent developers (a kind of "open source" development); lightweight business models enabled by content and rvice syndication; the end of the software adoption cycle ("the perpetual beta"); software above the level of a single device, leveraging the power of The Long Tail.
Earlier urs of the phra "Web 2.0" employed it as a synonym for "mantic web", and indeed, the two concepts complement each other. The combination of social networking systems such as FOAF
and XFN with the development of tag-bad folksonomies and delivered through blogs and wikis creates a natural basis for a mantic environment. Although the technologies and rvices that compri Web 2.0 are less powerful than an internet in which the machines can understand and extract meaning, as proponents of the Semantic Web envision, Web 2.0 reprents a step in its direction.少有
As ud by its proponents, the phra refers to one or more of the following:
The transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality, thus becoming computing platforms rving web applications to end urs
A social phenomenon referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content itlf, characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-u, and "the market as a conversation"
A more organized and categorized content, with a far more developed deeplinking web architecture
A shift in economic value of the web, possibly surpassing that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s
A marketing term to differentiate new web business from tho of the dot com boom, which due to
红色食品the bust now em discredited
The resurgence of excitement around the possibilities of innovative web applications and rvices that gained a lot of momentum around mid 2005
糖水做法Many find it easiest to define Web 2.0 by associating it with companies or products that embody its principles and Tim
怪物猎人p3大剑O'Reilly gave examples in his description of his four plus one levels in the hierarchy of Web 2.0-ness:
Level 3 applications, the most Wev 2.0, which could only exist on the internet, deriving their power from the human connections and network effects it makes possible and growing in effectiveness the more people u them. His examples were EBay, craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype, Dodgeball, Adn for Content, and Amazon. Level 2 applications, which can be offline but gain unique advantages from being online. His example was Flickr, benefiting from its shared photo databa and community-generated tag databa.
Level 1 applications are also available offline but gain features online. His examples were Writely, gaining group editing capability online and iTunes becau of the music store portion.
Level 0 applications would work as well offline. His examples were MapQuest, Yahoo! Local, and Google Maps. Mapping applications using contributions from urs to advantage can be level 2.
non-internet applications like email, IM clients and the telephone.
Examples other than tho cited by O'Reilly include digg, Shoutwire, last.fm, and Technorati.
出游策划书Commentators e many recently-developed concepts and technologies as contributing to Web 2.0, including weblogs, linklogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds and other forms of many to many publishing; social software, web APIs, web standards, online web rvices, and others.
美国手表Proponents of the Web 2.0 concept say that it differs from early web development (retrospectively labeled Web 1.0) in that it moves away from static websites, the u of arch engines, and surfing from one website to the next, towards a more dynamic and interactive World Wide Web. Others argue that the original and fundamental concepts of the WWW are not actually being superded. Skeptics argue that the term is little more than a buzzword, or that it means whatever its proponents want it to mean in order to convince their customers, investors and the media that they are creating something fundamentally new, rather than continuing to develop and u well-established technologies.
The retrospectively-labeled "Web 1.0" often consisted of static HTML pages, rarely (if ever) updated. They depended solely on HTML, which a new Internet ur could learn fairly easily. The success of the dot-com era depended on a more dynamic Web (sometimes labeled Web 1.5) where content management systems rved dynamic HTML web pages created on the fly from a content databa that could more easily be changed. In both ns, so-called eyeballing was considered intrinsic to the Web experience, thus making page hits and visual aesthetics important factors.
Proponents of the Web 2.0 approach believe that Web usage has started increasingly moving towards interaction and towards rudimentary social networks, which can rve content that exploits network effects with or without creating a visual, interactive web page. In one view, Web 2.0 sites act more as points of prence, or ur-dependent web portals, than as traditional websites. They have become so advanced new internet urs cannot create the websites, they are only urs of web rvices, done by specialist professional experts.
Access to consumer-generated content facilitated by Web 2.0 brings the web clor to Tim Berners-Lee's original concept of the web as a democratic, personal, and DIY medium of communication.
