A Seminar Report On

WEB 2.0
In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree

Third Year Computer Engineering By

OJAS M. KALE Exam Seat No. : T80694229 Roll No. : 29

Under the guidance of

Prof.Mr.S.R.LAHANE

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING

University Of Pune

Gokhale Education Societys

R. H. Sapat College of Engineering Management Studies and Research,

Nashik - 422 005, (M.S.), INDIA

Gokhale Education Societys

R. H. Sapat College of Engineering, Management Studies and Research,

Nashik - 422 005, (M.S.), INDIA

This is to certify that the seminar report entitled WEB 2.0 is being submitted herewith by OJAS MILIND KALE has successfully completed his/her seminar work in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Third Year Computer Engineering of University Of Pune.

Date : Place :

Prof. Mr.S.R.LAHANE Seminar Guide

Prof. N.V. Alone Head of the Department

University Of Pune

Gokhale Education Societys

R. H. Sapat College of Engineering, Management Studies and Research,

Nashik - 422 005, (M.S.), INDIA

Seminar Approval Sheet

This Seminar entitled

WEB 2.0
prepared and submitted by (OJAS MILIND KALE) has been approved and accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Third Year Computer Engineering

Prof.Mrs.A.S.Vaidya Seminar Coordinator

Prof.Mr.S.R.LAHANE Seminar Guide

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A successful seminar important part in Third Year Engineering studies, for this I take great pleasure in expressing my profound gratitude to my college guide Prof. A.S. Vaidya, who has taken keen interest and tremendous enthusiasm in providing excellent guidance towards the completion of my seminar. I would also like to thank Prof.N,V.Alone (Head of Computer Engineering. Dept.), Principal Mr. P. C. Kulkarni, all the faculty members of the college for their help and support. My deepest gratitude to my parents, friends, classmates and those whom I might have unknowingly forgotten to mention.

Ojas Milind Kale Seat Number: T80694229 Dept. of Computer Engineering G.E.S. College of Engineering, Nasik.

INDEX
CHAPTER NO. 1 2 2.1 2.2 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 CHAPTER NAME PAGE NO.

INTRODUCTION LITERATURE SURVEY HISTORY PROPERTIES SYSTEM ANALYSIS BUILDING BLOCK RICH INTERNET APPLICATION SERVICE ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE SOCIAL WEB

3.2 3.3

PHILOSOPHY Layers of distributed computing

3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 4 4.1 4.2 5 5.1 5.2 6

Categories of midddleware Rpc Message queuing model DISCUSSION Advantages Disadvantages

APPLICATION CONCLUSION REFERANCES

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.2.2 3.2.3 FIGURE NAME DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM DIFFERENCE CLIENT SERVER ARCHITECTURE 3 TIER ARCHITECTURE PEER TO PEER ARCHITECTURE PAGE NO.

3.3 3.4.1

LAYERS OF DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING REMOTE PROCEDURE CALL

ABSTRACT
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 s u g g e s t s a n e w v e r s i o n o f t h e W o r l d W i d e W e b , i t d o e s n o t r e f e r t o a n u p d a t e t o a n y t e c h n i c a l 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 browser. While Web 2.0 technologies are difficult to define precisely, the outline of emerging applications has become clear over the past year. We can thus essentially view Web 2.0 as semantic Web technologies integrated into, or powering, largescale Web applications. The base of Web 2.0 applications resides in the resource description framework (RDF) for providing a means to link data from multiple Web sites or databases. With the SPARQL query language, a SQL-like standard for querying RDF data, applications can use native graph-based RDF store sand extract RDF data from traditional databases.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
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 W e b u s e r s w i t h a d e e p a n d r i c h 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 2.0is 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.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

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1 HISTORY
The term "Web 2.0" was first used in January 1999 by Darcy Di Nucci, a consultant on electronic information design (information architecture). In her article, "Fragmented Future", Di Nucci writes: The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screen fuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screen fuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand-held game machines [...] maybe even your microwave oven. Writing when Palm Inc. was introducing its first web-capable personal digital assistant, supporting web access with WAP, Di Nucci saw the web "fragmenting" into a future that extended far beyond the browser/PC combination it was identified with. Her vision of the web's future focused on how the basic information structure and hyper linking mechanism introduced by HTTP would be used by a variety of devices and platforms. As such, her use of the "2.0" designation refers to a next version of the web that does not directly relate to the term's current use. The term Web 2.0 did not resurface until 2002. These authors focus on the concepts currently associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal, standards-based integration platform". John Robb wrote: "What is Web 2.0? It is a system that breaks with the old model of centralized Web sites and moves the power of the Web/Internet to the desktop." In 2004, the term began its rise in popularity when O'Reilly Media and Media Live hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business for you". They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They

associated Web 1.0 with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclopedia Britannica Online. For example, Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high-priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "web top" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the web top by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers. In short, Netscape focused on creating software, updating it on occasion, and distributing it to the end users. O'Reilly contrasted this with Google, a company that did not at the time focus on producing software, such as a browser, but instead on providing a service based on data such as the links Web page authors make between sites. Google exploits this user-generated content to offer Web search based on reputation through its "Page Rank" algorithm. Unlike software, which undergoes scheduled releases, such services are constantly updated, a process called "the perpetual beta". A similar difference can be seen between the Encyclopedia Britannica Online and Wikipedia: while the Britannica relies upon experts to create articles and releases them periodically in publications, Wikipedia relies on trust in anonymous users to constantly and quickly build content. Wikipedia is not based on expertise but rather an adaptation of the open source software adage "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", and it produces and updates articles constantly. O'Reilly's Web 2.0 conferences have been held every year since 2004, attracting entrepreneurs, large companies, and technology reporters. The term Web 2.0 was initially championed by bloggers and by technology journalists, culminating in the 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year (You). That is, TIME selected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on social networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites. In the cover story, Lev Grossman explains: It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world but also change the way the world changes.

2.2 properties
Web 2.0 w e b s i t e s a l l o w u s e r s t o d o m o r e t h a n j u s t r e t r i e v e i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e y c a n b u i l d o n t h e interactive facilities of "Web 1.0" to provide "Network as platform" computing, allowing users torun 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 2.0sites often feature a rich, user-friendly interface based on Ajax, open Laszlo, Flex or similar rich media. The sites may also have social-networking aspects. The O'Reilly Media Web site is a prime example of Web 2.0 at work. 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 groupmembers who dont 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 freeride on the contribution of others. 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 all should be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0. In fact web 1.0 came into existence after the evolution of web 2.0. 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 2.0also 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.

CHAPTER 3

SYSTEM ANALYSIS 3.1 BUILDING BLOCK

Web 2.0 can be described in three parts (Which are considerd to be the building blocks of web 2.0):

Rich Internet application (RIA) defines the experience brought from desktop to browser whether it is from a graphical point of view or usability point of view. Some buzzwords related to RIA are Ajax and Flash.

Web-oriented architecture (WOA) or Service-oriented architecture(SOA) is a key piece in Web 2.0, which defines how Web 2.0 applications expose their functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate the functionality providing a set of much richer applications. Examples are feeds, RSS, Web Services, mash-ups.

Social Web defines how Web 2.0 tends to interact much more with the end user and make the end-user an integral part.

3.1.1 Rich Internet application

A rich Internet application (RIA) is a Web application that has many of the characteristics of desktop application software, typically delivered by way of a site-specific browser, a browser plug-in, an independent sandbox, extensive use of JavaScript, or a virtual machine. Adobe Flash, JavaFX, and Microsoft Silverlight are currently the three most common platforms, with desktop browser penetration rates around 96%, 76%, and 66%, respectively (as of August 2011). Google trends shows (as of September 2012) that plug-ins based frameworks are in the process of being replaced by HTML5/JavaScript based alternatives. Users generally need to install a software framework using the computer's operating system before launching the application, which typically downloads, updates, verifies and executes the RIA. This is the main differentiator from HTML5/JavaScript-based alternatives like Ajax that use built-in browser functionality to implement comparable interfaces. As can be seen on the List of rich Internet application frameworks which includes even server-side frameworks, while some consider such interfaces to be RIAs, some consider them competitors to RIAs; and others, including Gartner, treat them as similar but separate technologies. RIAs dominate in browser based gaming as well as applications that require access to video capture (with the notable exception of Gmail, which uses its own task-specific browser plugin). Web standards such as HTML5 have developed and the compliance of Web browsers with those standards has improved somewhat. However, the need for plug-in based RIAs for accessing video capture and distribution has not diminished, even with the emergence of HTML5 and JavaScript-based desktop-like widget sets that provide alternative solutions for mobile Web browsing.

3.1.1. Rich Internet application:-

Fig 3.1.1

3.1.2 Service-oriented architecture(SOA)

In software engineering, a service-oriented architecture (SOA) is a style of software architecture for designing and developing software in the form of interoperable services. These services have well-defined business functionalities that are built as software components (discrete pieces of code and/or data structures) which can be reused for different purposes. SOA design principles are used during the phases of systems development and integration. SOA generally provides a way for consumers of services, such as web-based applications, to be aware of available SOA-based services. For example, several disparate departments within a company may develop and deploy SOA services in different implementation languages; their respective clients will benefit from a well-defined interface to access them. XML is often used for interfacing with SOA services. JSON is also becoming increasingly common. SOA defines how to integrate widely disparate applications for a Web-based environment and uses multiple implementation platforms. Rather than defining an API, SOA defines the interface in terms of protocols and functionality. An endpoint is the entry point for such a SOA implementation. Service-orientation requires loose coupling of services with operating systems and other technologies that underlie applications. SOA separates functions into distinct units, or services which developers make accessible over a network in order to allow users to combine and reuse them in the production of applications. These services and their corresponding consumers communicate with each other by passing data in a well-defined, shared format, or by coordinating an activity between two or more services.

SOA can be seen in a continuum, from older concepts of distributed computing and modular programming, through SOA, and on to current practices of mashups, SaaS, and cloud computing (which some see as the offspring of SOA).

Fig 3.1.2 service-oriented architecture

3.1.3 Social Web

The social web is a set of social relations that link people through the World Wide Web. The Social web encompasses how websites and software are designed and developed in order to support and foster social interaction. These online social interactions form the basis of much online activity including online shopping, education, gaming and social networking websites. The social aspect of Web 2.0 communication has been to facilitate interaction between people with similar tastes. These tastes vary depending on who the target audience is, and what they are looking for. For individuals working in the public relation department, the job is consistently changing and the impact is coming from the social web. The influence, held by the social network is large and ever changing. As people's activities on the Web and communication increase, information about their social relationships become more available. Social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, as well as the future Data web enable people and organizations to contact each other with persistent human-friendly names. Today hundreds of millions of Internet users are using thousands of social websites to stay connected with their friends, discover new friends,and to share user-created content, such as photos, videos, social bookmarks, and blogs, even through mobile platform support for cell phones. By the end quarter in 2008, Facebook reported 67 million members, MySpace occupied 100 million users, and YouTube had more than 100 million videos and 2.9 million user channels, and these numbers are consistently growing. The social Web is quickly reinventing itself, moving beyond simple web applications that connect individuals to become an entirely new way of life. Fig 3.1.3 Social Web:-

3.2 WEB 2.0 PHILOSOPHY

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 foundationfor 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 fromseveral factors: It's a multi -platform service. You can access Google on a PC or Mac (using a Web browser) or on amobile 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 workswith its search engine software. Without the database, the search application is worthless. Onthe 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 programor Web page, to make Web surfing and accessing the Internet more enjoyable. For example, theservice Twitter provides is based off of a very simple concept, members can send a message to an entirenetwork of friends using a simple interface. But Twitter also allows third-party developers to access partof 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 athird-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 tocreate the application. Other sites follow a similar philosophy. In 2007, the social networking site Facebook gave third-partydevelopers access to its API. Before long, hundreds of new applications appeared, using Facebook as a p l a t f o r m . F a c e b o o k m e m b e r s c a n c h o o s e f r o m d o z e n s o f a p p l i c a t i o n s t o e n h a n c e t h e i r b r o w s i n g experiences.

2.2 Democratization of Web

Fig. 2.1

OVERVIEW
The Web is entering a new phase of evolution. There has been much debate recently aboutwhat to call this new phase. Some would prefer to not name it all, while others suggestcontinuing to call it "Web 2.0". However, this new phase of evolution has quite a different FOCUS FROM WHAT WEB 2.0 http://novaspivack.typepad.com/RadarNetworksTowardsAWebOS.jpg

2.2 WEB
Definition
Web 1.0 is a retronym which refers to the state of the World Wide Web, and website design style beforethe 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 simpleformula for defining the phases of the Web, Web 1.0 was dial-up, 50K average bandwidth, Web 2.0 is anaverage 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 siteincluded: Static pages instead of dynamically generated content. The use of framesets. Proprietary HTML extensions such as the <blink> and <marquee> tags introducedduring the first browser war. Online guestbooks. GIF buttons, typically 88x31 pixels promoting web browsers and other products.

HTML forms sent via email. A user would fill in a form, and upon clicking submit their emailclient would attempt to send an email containing the form's details When Dale Dougherty of O'Reilly Media coined the term "Web 2.0," he probably didn't know he wasstirring up a hornets' nest. Defining Web 2.0 was only half of the problem. The other half had to dowith the use of "2.0." The number suggested that this was a new version of the World Wide Web. If Web2.0 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 aWeb 2.0. We will have to use O'Reilly's definition of Web 2.0 to figure out what Web 1.0 means. It's hard to define Web 1.0 for several reasons. First, Web 2.0 doesn't refer to a specific advance in Webtechnology. 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 1.0 and Web 2.0 in a time line. The definition of Web 1.0 completely depends upon thedefinition of Web 2.0. With that in mind, if Web 2.0 is a collection of approaches that are the most effective on the WorldWide Web, then Web 1.0 includes everything else. As for what it means to be "effective," Tim O'Reillysays that it's providing users with an engaging experience so that they'll want to return to the Web pagein the future. Here's a collection of strategies O'Reilly considers to be part of the Web 1.0 philosophy: Web 1.0 sites are static. They contain information that might be useful, but there's no reason for avisitor to return to the site later. An example might be a personal Web page that gives information aboutthe site's owner, but never changes. A Web 2.0 version might be a blog or MySpace account that ownerscan frequently update. Web 1.0 sites aren't interactive. Visitors can only visit these sites; they can't impact or contribute tothe sites. Most organizations have profile pages that visitors can look at but not impact or alter, whereasa wiki allows anyone to visit and make changes. Web 1.0 applications are proprietary. Under the Web 1.0 philosophy, companies developsoftware applications that users can download, but they can't see how the application works or changeit. A Web 2.0 application is an open source program, which means the source code for the program isfreely 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 toolsthey need to create new Firefox applications.

3.2 Classification
If Web 2.0 is a collection of the most effective ways to create and use Web pages, is there any reason tomake 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 aWeb 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 mightinfluence their decision to buy the product. The ability to contribute information is helpful. But insome 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 therestaurant 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 onlineencyclopedia resource that allows visitors to make changes to most articles. Ideally, with enough peoplecontributing to Wikipedia entries, the most accurate and relevant information about every subject willeventually 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 pages for these actsof vandalism, there's no guarantee that the information on an entry will be accurate on any given day.

Wikipedia is an example of a website with Web 2.0 approach. On the flip side of the coin are officialencyclopedias. 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 astress on objectivity. The author of an encyclopedia entry must present facts without being subjective; a person making an edit to a Wikipedia article could have a personal agenda and as a result hide certainfacts or publish false information. While Wikipedia can be a good starting place to find information aboutmost subjects, it's almost always a bad idea to use it as your sole source of information. World Book Encyclopedia's Web page is an example of a Web 1.0 information resource.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 site as a whole might follow the Web 1.0 approach, butthe 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 Webstrategies are more effective than others. In the end, whether or not there's such a thing as Web 1.0 isa moot point. The important thing is to learn how to use the Web to its full potential.

4. WEB 3.0

Fig. 4.1

4.1. Basics
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 makeconnections between people, Web 3.0 will use the Internet to make connections with information. Someexperts 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. Youwant a nice place to stay, but you don't want it to take up too much of your budget. You also want a gooddeal on a flight. With the Web technology currently available to you, you'd have to do a lot of research tofind the best vacation options. You'd need to research potential destinations and decide which one isright for you. You might visit two or three discount travel sites and compare rates for flights and hotelrooms. You'd spend a lot of your time looking through results on various search engine results pages. Theentire process could take several hours. If your Web 3.0 browser retrieves information for you based onyour likes and dislikes, could other people learn things about you that you'd rather keep private bylooking at your results? What if someone performs an Internet search on you? Will your activities onthe Internet become public knowledge? Some people worry that by the time we have answers tothese 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 thework 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 makesc o m p a r i s o n a s n a p . I t c a n d o this because Web 3.0 will be able to understand information on t h e 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 enginecan't tell if the Web page is actually relevant for your search. It can only tell that the keywordappears on the Web page. For example, if you searched for the term "Saturn," you'd end up withresults 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 contextof your request. It would return relevant results and suggest other content related to your searchterms. In our vacation example, if you typed "tropical vacation destinations under $3,000" as a searchrequest, the Web 3.0 browser might include a list of fun activities or great restaurants related to the searchresults. It would treat the entire Internet as a massive database of information available for any query.

4.2. Approach
In the case of Web 3.0, most Internet experts agree about its general traits. They believe that Web 3.0will provide users with richer and more relevant experiences. Many also believe that with Web3.0, every user will have a unique Internet profile based on that user's browsing history. Web 3.0 willuse this profile to tailor the browsing experience to each individual. That means that if twodifferent 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 softwarer e q u i r e d f o r t h i s k i n d o f a p p l i c a t i o n a r e n ' t ye t m a t u r e . S e r v i c e s l i k e T i V O a n d P a n d o r a p r o v i d e individualized content based on user input, but they both rely on a trial-and-error approach that isn'tas efficient as what the experts say Web 3.0 will be. More importantly, both TiVO and Pandora have al i m i t e d scope -- television shows and music, respectively -- whereas Web 3.0 w i l l i n v o l v e a l l t h e 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 certainset 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 thatuse Facebook as a staging ground for games, quizzes, product reviews and more. Web 3.0 will likely plug into your individual tastes and browsing habits. One Web 2.0 trend that couldhelp the development of Web 3.0 is the mashup. A mashup is the combination of two or moreapplications into a single application. For example, a developer might combine a program that letsusers review restaurants with Google Maps. The new mashup application could show not onlyrestaurant 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 doit.Widgets are small applications that people can insert into Web pages by copying and embedding linesof code into a Web page's code. They can be games, news feeds, video players or just about anythingelse. Some Internet prognosticators believe that Web 3.0 will let users combine widgets together to makemashups by just clicking and dragging a couple of icons into a box on a Web page. Want an applicationthat shows you where news stories are happening? Combine a news feed icon with a Google Earth iconand 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, itwill rely on some new and unnamed language. These experts suggest it might be easier to start fromscratch rather than try to change the current Web. However, this version of Web 3.0 is so theoreticalthat 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 Internetand 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 theWorld Wide Web to do all the things that Web 2.0 is supposed to do. Berners-Lee's vision of the futureWeb is similar to the concept of Web 3.0. It's called the Semantic Web. Right now, the Web'sstructure is geared for humans. It's easy for us to visit a Web page and understand what it'sall about. Computers can't do that. A search engine might be able to scan for keywords, but it can't understand howthose keywords are used in the context of the page. With the Semantic Web, computers will scan andinterpret information on Web pages using software agents. These software agents will be programs thatc r a w l t h r o u g h t h e W e b , searching for relevant information. They'll be able to do that because t h e Semantic Web will have collections of information called ontologies. In terms of the Internet, an ontologyis a file that defines the relationships among a group of terms. For example, the term "cousin" refers to thefamilial relationship between two people who share one set of grandparents. A Semantic Webontology 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 thecode for Web pages that is invisible to humans, but readable by computers. Constructing ontologies takes a lot of work. In fact, that's one of the big obstacles the Semantic Webfaces. Will people be willing to put in the effort required to make comprehensive ontologies for their Websites? Will they maintain them as the Web sites change? Critics suggest that the task of creatingand 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. Webtags categorize the tagged object or information. Several blogs include a tag

option, making it easy toclassify journal entries under specific topics. Photo sharing sites like Flickr allow users to tag pictures.Google even has turned it into a game: Goo gle Image Labeler pits two people against each other in alabeling 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 relevantresults back to the user. Perhaps Web 3.0 will combine Berners-Lee's

CRITICISM
The term Web 2.0 has inspired a lot of discussion. Some disagree on exactly what the termmeans, and others argue that it doesn't mean anything at all. Here are some summaries of the mainarguments: Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, dismissed the Web 2.0 concept. He called Web2.0 "a piece of jargon" and said "nobody even knows what it means" in an IBM developerWorksinterview. 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 theterm was nothing more than a marketing slogan. He wrote that while the individual elements of Web2.0 actually do exist, they can't be grouped together under a single term or concept. Shaw claimed thatthe concepts in Web 2.0 were too broad, and that many of its goals conflicted with each other. Jay Fienberg, an information architecture specialist, called Web 2.0 a "retrospectiveconcept." He said that only a year after O'Reilly introduced the term, it had become a marketinggimmick. Fienberg pointed out that many popular technology businesses adopted the term tomake their companies sound innovative. This in turn watered down any meaning the original name mayhave 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 hadno meaning but became more defined as people looked deeper into the current state of theWeb. His perspective is that Web 2.0 refers to the best way to use the World Wide Web, through realconnections between users and higher levels of interactivity.

There are hundreds of other blog entries that focus on Web 2.0, what it means and whether it's really astep 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 marketing slogan. Some people feel that Web 2.0 has so manymeanings that it's been reduced to a buzz word. A few Web 2.0

experts have shied away from the termand use phrases like social networking and Web democratization instead.

CONCLUSION
Although there has been widespread debate on whether actually a Web 2.0 exists or not, Web 2.0 has beenone of the most talked about and discussed topics in recent times. There is no denying the fact thatthere is a definite visible change of trends while using the world wide web. Even criticizers of Web 2.0do not deny this fact.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.

REFERENCES:
Graham, Paul. "Web 2.0." PaulGraham.com. November, 2005.http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html O'Reilly, Tim. "What is Web 2.0."O'Reilly Media. September 30, 2005.http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html Wikipedia.com, Web 2.0., Web 1.0.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_1.0 HowStuffsWork.com, How Web 2.0 works". http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-20.htML WWW.IEEE.ORG www.spectrum.ieee.org

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19293113/WEB-20 "Rich Internet Application Market Share", Data from StatOwl. http://www.statowl.com/custom_ria_market_penetration.php -- StatOwl data is from ~28m unique visitors per month.; This data is consistent with that reported from RIAStats.com, which is based on ~4m daily visitors http://riastats.com/. These statistics clearly indicate consistent evidence that Flash, Silverlight, Java, and HTML5 are available to over 50% of

web users as of summer 2011. See also "Rich Internet Applications: The Next Frontier of Corporate Development" by Larry Seltzer. 2010-08-25. eWeek. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Rich-Internet-Applications-The-Next-Frontier-ofCorporate-Development-732651/