Web 2.0 Expo and Conference

February 9, 2007

Web 2.0 banner

CMP Technology and O’Reilly Media, Inc. have created a Web 2.0 conference / expo for April 2007 that should rock the world of Web 2.0. From the looks of it, San Francisco will be the lucky town to host some of the webs major players, checkout this list of attendance; the interesting presenters are Jay Adelson, Ed Anuff, Jeffrey P. Bezos, Brett Costby and so many more.

If you are within the learning community and you are trying to decide if this applies to you, there is only one question to ask yourself. Does new web-technologies and trends effect how you deliver, plan or manage what you do? Good luck saying no!

We’re tackling not just Web 2.0 as strategy but also design, programming, operations, and viral marketing – the elements of execution that will ultimately separate the winners from the me-too companies in the space
—Tim O’Reilly, Founder and CEO, O’Reilly Media.

Brainpath.net community finds the following expo/conf links important:


Web 2.0 Whitepaper

February 7, 2007

This whitepaper explains the basics of Web2.0 as well as offers some interesting links and some basic examples. Most of the information presented within this paper has been drawn from a multitude of Web 2.0 website/ web applications.

Utter freedom via tagging and social constructs???

February 7, 2007

Taxonomy goodbye, Folksonomy hello! The difference between the two is usually explained with variations around the word ‘formality’.

Taxonomies imply standards of information for the purpose of searching, retrieving … essentially the science of classification; very boring! Folksonomy is similar but has only one standard, open-ended categorization. Here is an example that might clear things up.

Assume, for a moment, that Taxonomy is as form with structured fields, lines and many “If you selected yes above…” directions. In contrast, Folksonomy would be a blank piece of paper. On this paper you can right down words that you see fit. What you end up doing is tagging and categorizing without being restricted. Since “great minds” think alike, people of your “greatness” would be lead to your information rather effectively.

Ok! That might no have been as clear as expect, but the best way to learn is by doing… try http://www.flickr.com/ and http://www.brainpath.net/.

Skeptic appeal

February 7, 2007

Ok let’s play devil’s advocate! So, web 2.0 is good enough and the glass is half-empty; make that mostly empty. Here we go…

Web 2.0 takes most of criticism from its lack of standards and that it’s very hard to define… so most people see it as a buzzword. Others find that practically everything, on the web, invented after 2004 is deemed web 2.0.

Other points have been noted; such as it has no business models of association and that it’s nothing new; some people believe that web 2.0 has existed since 1995 where Amazon.con allowed users to write their own consumer guides.

We can’t really disagree with any of these aspects but we don’t see this criticism to be strong enough to dismiss the idea. After all, web 2.0 expresses an era of social and friendly web content / services.

Characteristics of Web 2.0

February 6, 2007

This is a direct extract from the following link, a very well know and perhaps over used example of web2.0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2#Characteristics_of_Web_2.0

While interested parties continue to debate the definition of a Web 2.0 application, a Web 2.0 web-site may exhibit some basic characteristics. These might include:

* “Network as platform” — delivering (and allowing users to use) applications entirely through a browser. See also Web operating system.
* Users owning the data on the site and exercising control over that data.
* An architecture of participation and democracy that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.
* A rich, interactive, user-friendly interface based on Ajax or similar frameworks.
* Some social-networking aspects.

The concept of Web-as-participation-platform captures many of these characteristics.
Bart Decrem, founder and former CEO of Flock calls Web 2.0 the “participatory Web. ”

Web 2.0 ≠ Open Source

February 6, 2007

There is a tendency to define Web 2.0 as Open Source (OS) since this “second generation” of the internet is “[emphasizing on] online collaboration and sharing among users.” However, they are different. OS implies “free software” which may or may not make use of web 2.0 ideologies. Similarly, some web 2.0 services / products may be free to use (OS) or may require money.