We have discussed the main elements of theWeb 2.0model. Write a1-page paperwhich discusses aWeb 2.0application you are familiar with (andnotone discussed in O'Reilly's article, such asAmazon,eBay, Google orWikipedia). Describe how this applicationexemplifies the Web 2.0model.
Written Assignment Format The summary format guidelines are: · Times New Roman 12 · 1-inch page margins · Double line spacing · ½-inch indent for new paragraphs · Capitalization for headings The main text in this paper is left-aligned; don’t use the right-side justification. Text is double-spaced throughout your paper. This includes not only the body text, but also headings, titles, and the entries in the list of works cited. The first sentence of every new paragraph in your essay is indented half an inch. In longer papers you might want to use headings to help organize and provide structure to your paper. Keep the font and size the same as the body text. In general, boldface indicates greater prominence, while italics is appropriate for subordinate headings. References In-text Citation After researching your topic, you might end up quoting or paraphrasing from other sources. It’s important that you do this correctly in order to avoid committing plagiarism. A proper citation consists of two parts: the in-text citation and the entry in the list of works cited. The in-text citation is placed right after the quote or paraphrase and contains the author’s last name and page number. Usually this information is placed within parentheses. Let’s look at an example: “A membership referendum held today would be backed by 55 percent of Danish voters” (Levring, 8). List of Works Cited The in-text citation discussed above corresponds to an entry in the list of works cited, placed at the end of your paper on a separate page. There you give more information about a source such as the title, publisher and date of publication. If a reference entry is longer than one line, each line after the first should be indented ½ inch (called a hanging indent). The entries in the list are then sorted alphabetically. You may construct this citation manually, or use a generator such as https://www.citationmachine.net/mla/cite-a-website/manual An example follows: Works Cited Adams, Amanda. Citing Sources: How to Cite a Book. Academic Press, 2019. Barnes, Barney. “A Chapter in an Edited Collection.” A Book of Examples, edited by John Smith, Academic Press, 2019, pp. 25–35. Cox, Christopher, and Brian D. Smith. “The Title of the Article.” Website name, 15 Sept. 2019, www.scribbr.com/page. Dayton, Daniels, and Bob Matthew Williams. “Journal Article Title.” Journal of Academic Research, vol. 32, no. 15, 2014, pp. 232–265, doi:10.1080/02626667.2018.1560449. Fox, Ferdinant, et al. The Basics of Citing in MLA Style. 2nd ed., Scribbr Press, 2008. O'Reilly Network: What Is Web 2.0 O'Reilly Network: What Is Web 2.0 Published on O'Reilly (http://www.oreilly.com/) http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html See this if you're having trouble printing code examples What Is Web 2.0 Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software by Tim O'Reilly 09/30/2005 Read this article in: ● Chinese ● French ● German ● Japanese ● Korean ● Spanish The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other. The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born. http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228 (1 of 20)6/24/2006 6:34:36 PM http://www.oreilly.com/ http://www.oreilly.com/ http://www.oreilly.com/ http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/general/print_code.html http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/27 http://www.enet.com.cn/article/2005/1122/A20051122474593.shtml http://web2rules.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-is-web-20-par-tim-oreilly-version.html http://twozero.uni-koeln.de/content/e14/index_ger.html http://japan.cnet.com/column/web20/story/0,2000054679,20090039-5,00.htm http://network.hanbitbook.co.kr/view.php?bi_id=1141 http://sociedaddelainformacion.telefonica.es/jsp/articulos/detalle.jsp?elem=2146 http://www.carlotaperez.org/ http://www.carlotaperez.org/ http://www.web2con.com/ O'Reilly Network: What Is Web 2.0 In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom. This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0. In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example: Web 1.0 Web 2.0 DoubleClick --> Google AdSense Ofoto --> Flickr Akamai --> BitTorrent mp3.com --> Napster Britannica Online --> Wikipedia personal websites --> blogging evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB domain name speculation --> search engine optimization page views --> cost per click screen scraping --> web services publishing --> participation content management systems --> wikis directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy") stickiness --> syndication The list went on and on. But what was it that made us identify one application or approach as "Web 1.0" and another as "Web 2.0"? (The question is particularly urgent because the Web 2.0 meme has become so widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means. The question is particularly difficult because many of those buzzword-addicted startups are definitely not Web 2.0, while some of the applications we identified as Web 2.0, like Napster and BitTorrent, are not even properly web applications!) We began trying to tease out the principles that are demonstrated in one way or another by the success stories of web 1.0 and by the most interesting of the new applications. 1. The Web As Platform Like many important concepts, Web 2.0 doesn't have a hard boundary, but rather, a gravitational core. You can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core. http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228 (2 of 20)6/24/2006 6:34:36 PM http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/08/not_20.html O'Reilly Network: What Is Web 2.0 Figure 1 shows a "meme map" of Web 2.0 that was developed at a brainstorming session during FOO Camp, a conference at O'Reilly Media. It's very much a work in progress, but shows the many ideas that radiate out from the Web 2.0 core. For example, at the first Web 2.0 conference, in October 2004, John Battelle and I listed a preliminary set of principles in our opening talk. The first of those principles was "The web as platform." Yet that was also a rallying cry of Web 1.0 darling Netscape, which went down in flames after a heated battle with Microsoft. What's more, two of our initial Web 1.0 exemplars, DoubleClick and Akamai, were both pioneers in treating the web as a platform. People don't often think of it as "web services", but in fact, ad serving was the first widely deployed web service, and the first widely deployed "mashup" (to use another term that has gained currency of late). Every banner ad is served as a seamless cooperation between two websites, delivering an integrated page to a reader on yet another computer. Akamai also treats the network as the platform, and at a deeper level of the stack, building a transparent caching and content delivery network that eases bandwidth congestion. Nonetheless, these pioneers provided useful contrasts because later entrants have taken their solution to the same problem even further, understanding something deeper about the nature of the new platform. Both DoubleClick and Akamai were Web 2.0 pioneers, yet we can also see how it's possible to realize more of the possibilities by embracing additional Web 2.0 design patterns. http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228 (3 of 20)6/24/2006 6:34:36 PM http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228?page=3#designpatterns O'Reilly Network: What Is Web 2.0 Let's drill down for a moment into each of these three cases, teasing out some of the essential elements of difference. Netscape vs. Google If Netscape was the standard bearer for Web 1.0, Google is most certainly the standard bearer for Web 2.0, if only because their respective IPOs were defining events for each era. So let's start with a comparison of these two companies and their positioning. 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 "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers. In the end, both web browsers and web servers turned out to be commodities, and value moved "up the stack" to services delivered over the web platform. Google, by contrast, began its life as a native web application, never sold or packaged, but delivered as a service, with customers paying, directly or indirectly, for the use of that service. None of the trappings of the old software industry are present. No scheduled software releases, just continuous improvement. No licensing or sale, just usage. No porting to different platforms so that customers can run the software on their own equipment, just a massively scalable collection of commodity PCs running open source operating systems plus homegrown applications and utilities that no