• <legend id="fb44b"></legend>

    <li id="fb44b"><acronym id="fb44b"></acronym></li>
  • <tbody id="fb44b"></tbody>

    <li id="fb44b"><acronym id="fb44b"></acronym></li>

    1. 您的位置 首頁 問答

      Web 2.0是什么

      Web2.0,指的是一個利用Web的平臺,由用戶主導而生成的內容互聯網產品模式,為了區別傳統由網站雇員主導生成的內容而定義為web2.0。接下來小編為大家整理網站應如何創建。希望對你有幫助哦!ThephraseWeb2.0wascreatedbyO’ReillyMediatorefertoasuppose

      Web 2.0,指的是一個利用Web的平臺,由用戶主導而生成的內容互聯網產品模式,為了區別傳統由網站雇員主導生成的內容而定義為web2.0。接下來小編為大家整理網站應如何創建。希望對你有幫助哦!
      The phrase Web 2.0 was created by O’Reilly Media to refer to a supposed second generation of network-centric services 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, used the phrase as a title for a series 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 phrase “Web 2.0” trendily hints at an improved form of the World Wide Web, and the term has appeared in occasional use for several years. The more explicit synonym “Participatory Web”, emphasizing tools and platforms that enable the user to tag, blog, comment, modify, augment, select from, rank, and generally talk back to the contributions of other users and the general world community has increasingly seen use as an alternative phrase. Some commentators regard reputation-based 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 session. Dougherty suggested that the Web was in a renaissance, with changing rules and evolving business models. The participants assembled examples — “DoubleClick was Web 1.0; Google AdSense 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 second annual conference was held in October 2005.
      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 assembly of systems and sites composed by pulling together features from distributed, independent developers (a kind of “open source” development); lightweight business models enabled by content and service 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 users of the phrase “Web 2.0” employed it as a synonym for “semantic 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-based folksonomies and delivered through blogs and wikis creates a natural basis for a semantic environment. Although the technologies and services that comprise 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 represents a step in its direction.
      As used by its proponents, the phrase 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 serving web applications to end users
      A social phenomenon referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content itself, characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, 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 businesses from those of the dot com boom, which due to the bust now seem discredited
      The resurgence of excitement around the possibilities of innovative web applications and services that gained a lot of momentum around mid 2005
      Many find it easiest to define Web 2.0 by associating it with companies or products that embody its principles and Tim 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 use them. His examples were EBay, craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype, Dodgeball, Adsense for Content, housingmaps.com 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 database and community-generated tag database.
      Level 1 applications are also available offline but gain features online. His examples were Writely, gaining group editing capability online and iTunes because 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 users to advantage can be level 2.
      non-internet applications like email, IM clients and the telephone.
      Examples other than those cited by O’Reilly include digg, Shoutwire, last.fm, and Technorati.
      Commentators see 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 services, and others.
      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 use of search 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 superseded. 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 use 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 user 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 served dynamic HTML web pages created on the fly from a content database that could more easily be changed. In both senses, 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 serve 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 presence, or user-dependent web portals, than as traditional websites. They have become so advanced new internet users cannot create these websites, they are only users of web services, done by specialist professional experts.
      Access to consumer-generated content facilitated by Web 2.0 brings the web closer to Tim Berners-Lee’s original concept of the web as a democratic, personal, and DIY medium of communication.
      Web 2.0是一個由O’Reilly Media創造的術語,它的應用可以讓人了解目前萬維網正在進行的一種改變——從一系列網站到一個成熟的為最終用戶提供網絡應用的服務平臺。這種概念的支持者期望Web 2.0服務將在很多用途上最終取代桌面計算機應用。Web 2.0并不是一個技術標準,不過它包含了技術架構及應用軟件。它的特點是鼓勵作為資訊最終利用者透過分享,使到可供分享的資源變得更豐盛;相反的,過去的各種網上分享方式則顯得支離破碎。
      概覽
      Web(在這里,指代“Web 1.0”)最早的概念包括不常更新(甚至不更新)的靜態HTML頁面。而.com時代的成功則是依靠一個更加動態的Web(指代“Web 1.5”),其中CMS(內容管理系統)可以從不斷變化的內容數據庫中即時生成動態HTML頁面。從這兩種意義上來說,所謂的眼球效應則被認為是固有的Web感受,也因此頁面點擊率和外觀成為了重要因素。
      Web 2.0的支持者認為Web的使用正日漸以交互性和未來的社會性網絡為導向,所提供的服務內容,通過或不通過創建一個可視的、交互的網頁來充分挖掘網絡效應。某種觀點認為,和傳統網站相比,Web 2.0的網站更多表現為Point of presence或者是依賴用戶的門戶網站。
      另一方面,其實早在1999年,著名的管理學者彼得·杜拉克 (Peter F. Drucker)就曾指出當時的資訊科技發展走錯了方向,因為真正推動社會進步的,是”Information Technology”里的”Information”,而不是”Technology”。若然單單著重技術層面而忽略了資訊的話,就只是一具空的軀殼,不能使社會增值。而Web 2.0很明顯是透過參與者的互動:不論是提供內容、為內容索引或評分,都能夠使他們所使用的平臺增值。透過參與者的互動,好的產品或資訊本著它的口碑,從一小撮使用者擴展到一大班人,一但超過了臨界質量,就會“像病毒一樣廣泛流傳”(葛拉威爾,2002)。
      該詞的來源
      有不少人以為”Web 2.0″是一個技術的標準,其實這是個美麗的誤會,因為Web 2.0只是一個用來闡述技術轉變的術語。這個術語是由O’Reilly Media的Dale Dougherty 和 MediaLive 的 Craig Cline 在共同合作的腦力激蕩(brain storming)會議上提出來的。Dougherty提出了Web目前正處于復興時期,有著不斷改變的規則和不斷演化的商業模式。而Dougherty則是舉例說明——“DoubleClick是Web 1.0,Google AdSense 則是Web 2.0。 Ofoto是Web 1.0;Flickr 則是Web 2.0”,而不是給出確切的定義,和補充一個商業前景,同時O’Reilly Media、Battelle和MediaLive 在2004年10月啟動了第一個Web 2.0大會。第二次的年會已在2005年10月舉辦。
      在他們的會議開場白上,O’Reilly和Battelle總結了他們認為的表現了Web 2.0應用特色的一些關鍵原則:
      將Web作為平臺;
      駕馭群體智慧
      資料將變成未來的“Intel Inside”;
      軟件不斷發行與升級的循環將會終結(“永久的Beta版”)
      輕量型程序設計模型;
      通過內容和服務的聯合使輕量的業務模型可行;
      軟件執行將跨越單一設備
      豐富的使用者體驗
      分享和參與的架構 所驅動的網絡效應;
      通過帶動分散的、獨立的開發者把各個系統和網站組合形成大匯集的改革;
      拉動長尾的能力;
      快速的反應與功能新增
      雙向的互動
      這種軟件發布中的版本號的使用從某一方面也暗示了整個Web已經被看作是一種有著重大增值意義的新產品,而且正在被重新編寫和發布。
      同語義網的比較
      對于Web 2.0這個詞的一個較早的出現是作為語義網的同義詞。這兩個概念有點相似而且是互補的。結合了基于標簽的Folksonomy(分眾分類法)的社會性網絡系統如FOAF和XFN,以及通過Blog和Wiki進行發表,已經創建了一個語義環境的天然基礎。
      技術
      Web 2.0技術基礎比較復雜而且還在演化中,但可以肯定的是包括服務器端軟件、內容聯合組織、消息協議、基于標準的瀏覽器和各種不同的客戶端應用程序。(一般會避免使用非標準瀏覽器的一些增強功能和插件)這些不同但是互補的方法提供了Web2.0信息存儲、創建和分發的能力,這些能力遠遠超出了先前人們對網站的期望。
      如果一個網站使用了以下一些技術作為特色的話,就說他是利用了Web 2.0技術:
      技術方面:
      CSS, 語義化有效的XHTML標記,和Microformats
      不突出的豐富應用技術(例如Ajax)
      數據的聯合,RSS/ATOM
      RSS/ATOM數據的聚合
      規則且有意義的URL
      支持對網志發帖子
      REST 或者是XML Web服務API
      某些社會性網絡方面
      通用概念:
      網站不能是封閉的——它必須可以很方便地被其他系統獲取或寫入數據。
      用戶應該在網站上擁有他們自己的數據。
      完全地基于Web —— 大多數成功的Web 2.0網站可以幾乎完全通過瀏覽器來使用
      內容聯合組織
      Web 2.0的首要的也是最重要的發展,包括了使用標準化協議的網站內容的聯合,這可以讓最終用戶在其他環境中使用網站的數據,包括另一個網站、瀏覽器插件、或者一個單獨的桌面應用程序。這些聯合協議包括RSS,資源描述框架(RDF),和Atom,這些都是基于XML的。特別的協議如FOAF和XFN(XHTML朋友網絡)——這兩者都是為了社會性網絡開發的——擴展了網站的功能或者可讓最終用戶不集中于網站就可以進行交互。參見microformats,以查詢更多的專門數據格式。
      由于發展太快,很多這些協議都是事實上的標準而不是正式的標準。
      Web服務
      雙向的消息協議是Web 2.0架構的關鍵元素之一。兩個主要的類型是RESTful和SOAP方法。REST(Representational State Transfer)表示了一種Web服務 客戶端傳送所有的事務的狀態。SOAP(Simple Object Access Protocal)和類似的輕量方法都依賴服務器來保存狀態信息。兩種情況下,服務是通過一個API調用的。這個API常常是根據網站的特殊需求定義的,但是標準的Web服務API(例如,給Blog發帖)的API依然被廣泛使用。一般來說Web服務的通用語言是XML,但并不一定,還存在大量不同的其他語言,如JSON,YAML等。
      最近,出現了一個被稱之為Ajax的混合形式,用來增強基于瀏覽器的Web應用的用戶體驗。這可以用于一些特別的形式(如Google Maps、UrMap)或是一些開放的形式,可以直接利用Web服務API、數據聯合,甚至是繪畫。
      寬泛得說,聯合是一種Web服務的形式,但是Web服務形式的使用卻不是很常見的。
      參見 WSDL(Web服務描述語言)和Web服務規范表。
      服務器軟件
      Web 2.0 的功能是在已有的Web服務器架構上建立的,但是更加強調后臺軟件。數據聯合不僅僅是名稱上和內容管理發布方法不同,而且Web服務要求更加強壯的數據庫和工作流的支持,并且變得與傳統的企業內部網的應用服務器功能更加相似。供應商不管是用一個通用服務器方法,可以把所有需要的功能都集中到一個服務器平臺上,或者是一個Web服務器插件的方法,可以使用增強了API接口的標準發布工具和其他工具。不管選擇的是哪種途徑,Web 2.0的進化不會為這些選擇做出重大改變。
      社會影響
      Web 2.0中出現的數據聯合和消息傳送能力,提出了潛在的一種可能性——在完全不同的在線社區之間創建一個更加緊密的社會構造。同時還出現了一些新的術語來集合性地代表這些共同的社團,包括blogshpere:網志的世界,syndisphere:內容聯合發布,以及 wikisphere,然而其他的觀察者認為這些措辭和內在的含義太空泛了。
      商業影響
      可能的由Web 2.0帶來的指數級增長的業務的原因,可歸結為以人為本的消費和以計算機為本的消費的區別。
      對于價值的鑒定和消費的過程中無需不同人為參與,由于Web 2.0的出現,也是完全可能的事情了。各個組織會不斷使用諸如RSS/Atom/RDF之類的聯合格式來聯合他們的價值提案。除了價值的聯合外,Web服務終點發布將簡化聯合的價值的消費過程。
      事實上,至今沒有人能給Web2.0下一個明確的定義。每個人眼中的Web2.0都有不同的表述。技術研究者眼中的Web2.0是SNS、BLOG等社會性軟件的興起; 博客們則認為Web2.0是人與人之間更為便捷的互動; 在風險投資商眼中,Web2.0又代表了新的商業機會和行業游戲規則。
      而從行銷者的角度來看,Web2.0則至少意味著三個方面的內容: 一種創新的媒介形式、一個集中的社群環境,以及一種全新行銷理念。
      目前逐漸盛行的BLOG行銷被認為是Web2.0行銷的典型形式之一。
      早期的網絡行銷不外乎是透過電子郵件發送、彈出式視窗、橫幅式廣告等幾種手法。 最常見的例子就是入口網站將其網頁上的廣告空間待價而沽,等到廣告商上門之后,入口網站再依點選率或是擺放時間的長短來收取費用。 這樣的缺點是,廣告商永遠無法知道你所擺放的廣告是不是真的接觸到你的目標客戶,還是只是在茫茫的網海中找尋一兩個真正有需求的消費者。 就像是Tim O’Reilly所說的一樣,如果Web 1.0的代表者是Netscape,那Web 2.0的代表就是Google。 Google一改以往廣告商尋找消費者的思考模式,而改以消費者自行查詢廣告的思維模式來經營。 Google將首頁保持干凈,但在關鍵字搜尋的時候提供你想要查找資訊的相關廣告,不但確保每一個點選進網站的瀏漤者都是對該資訊有興趣的潛在消費者,也一并解決了消費者對廣告視窗擾人的困擾。 而前一陣子Google推出的Google Page也有異曲同工之妙,利用免費提供部落格服務的形式,從中蒐集更多消費者的習性,其中的用意就是要為消費者量身訂做一個個人化的Google。