Posts Tagged web 2.0
…I hope that we as humanity can learn to use this information space to understand each other, that we can form ourselves into groups in lots of interesting ways so that between us that sort of just tangled web of human groups spans the world and makes that so that it's not…you aren't too many clicks across the social Web from any one person to any other one person, so that start really pulling together in the world and solving the huge challenges which we've got without being distracted by fighting each other. — Sir Tim Berners Lee
…software mashups al la Web 2.0 technologies have gained traction — Grady Booch
Wow! The more I read about this, the more I begin to imagine what life would be were it not for the World Wide Web. It's become so easy to talk to some person who you have not even seen. Specially social networking has reached a stage where it's been more important to 'know people who know' rather than just 'know'! (Can you imagine life without Orkut?!)
If you want to have a larger picture of the way the WWW is positioned now and about its history and the way you can expect it to proceed, you need to listen to this podcast or read it here. (Source: From IBM developerworks article)
As for Booch's comment, well, if Booch says it, you better watch that space! (Here's the source for Grady Booch's comment.)
Everyone is talking about Web 2.0. And almost everyone who sees it, seems to be a big fan of it.
Now let me tell you something that the GAGS have hidden from you all these days…
It is something that we wanted to base our 'company' on!
The idea is something that Web 2.0 is trying to achieve, but is not even close. In simple terms it is interoperability of end user services. Web 2.0 in its present form is just providing integration of services [See Live.com for example]. Live.com is talking about providing mail, messenger, gadgets and obviously an RSS feed aggregator. It is basically talking about integration.
Now put in some more spice and bring in the magic word “interoperability”. What we get is services talking to each other. For example, your mail service starts talking to your blog. Or your messenger starts talking to your feed aggregator. Now what do you get with such an interoperability? Well, it is limited only by our imagination!
The way this would work is by having rules defined to make services interact with each other. These rules would initially look very similar to the “Matches”->”Do this” found in Gmail. But that is just the beginning.
For a starter let me give you an example. You could define some rule, which says “When I am in office, I don't want my friends to see me online”. And lo, your messenger gets what you say! Or you could say, “Whatever offline messages my friends leave in my messenger should be immediately mailed to me”.
Web 3.0 is considered to be OS over the web and if you want more flexibility, you can even think of programming over the web. That is a different story all together!
And for Ananyeah, this is just the beginning. The vision of Ananyeah is something that will take quite some time to achieve.
It has just been 2 weeks since me and
The concept of single data source would mean that no data would exist in static pages. All the data would reside in some storage unit and the pages would be created (if at all required) at run time based on the users' interests.
The existing search engines work on static pages. How well would this work in Web 2.0? Suppose the only pages that existed in the Internet were dynamic pages, what can the search engines index?
I should have thought of it before. As some “Google 1 hour video” says, Google will never give up. They think way ahead of others!
People are spreading rumors about Google base. Here is what Slashdot has to say. The comments are interesting as well.
Google stepped in and made an official announcement too.
People at Google are not fools! They know that once the world moves towards Semantic web and Web 2.0, the amount of static content is going to be drastically reduced. This would mean that search engines cannot boast of having indexed 8 million (or billion) pages and if they do that, it would be considered seriously out-fashioned. (Google has in fact stopped putting that number in their home page; why they did this is a different story altogether!)
It seems like Google says, “How can we solve this problem? Ask people to send data to us? Yeah, why not?! Why should we go around and ask people for data? Let us ask them to publish it here. We want all info. We have the capacity to store it all here. Make your data dynamic and we'll instantly show the world the data that you created.” (You publish, we subscribe! Inverse-RSSing hah?)
Now the question comes, whether they are really moving towards the semantic web or not. I think they are. I did not get a chance to see Google base as yet; assuming that all the rumors are spreading true facts about Google Base, Google is using a “name=value” kinda structure in Google base, which is a basic pre-requisite for facts representation in Semantic web.
This could mean that Google would then say, “Just publish it wherever you want in a definite syntax, and we will take it from there”. The only difference between this way of indexing and the present way is that in the new method, Google is able to interpret the content in a much better way as the data is structured.
We are seeing a total transformation in the way we work. More and more applications are moving on to the web. But the more sensible approach would be to move everything down to the desktop and then provide total interoperability between them.
Some years down the line, browsers will disappear and you will know what I meant.