Understanding advances in Web Technologies Evolution from Web 2.0 to
EVOLUTION FROM WEB 2.0 TO WEB 3.0
Understandingadvancesin WebTechnologies:EvolutionfromWeb2.0 toWeb3.0
Abstract Webapplications Web 2.0 has a great impact in today`s society. It hashelped organizations and individuals improve the way they interactwith each other. The purpose of this paper is to analyze webtechnologies and how they are of assistance to the user. It alsoexplains how the next generation will adopt the Web 3.0. In addition,the paper identifies some of the limitations of current technologiesand the solutions using future trends.Introduction TheWorld Wide Web has developed for the last fifteen years (Anderson,2007). It has exponentially grown through various stages. This isevidenced by the evolution of Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 that included newand improved online activities that could not be attained in thepast. Research shows that a new and updated version of Web 3.0 isslowly replacing the current Web 2.0 (Boulos & Wheeler, 2007).The advancement in technology has led to the emergence of new ideasand companies are using this to their advantage whereby they areimproving their services as well as coming up with new inventions.The Web 3.0 is considered as a semantic web because it is an advancedin the current technology and will be able to safeguard pictures andother relevant information using codes (Sankar & Bouchard, 2009).Users will be able to view photos from maps with the insertion ofcodes. Web searches will be improved, and numerous methods ofnavigation are available. Studies have concluded that the web 3.0will help improve search capability, connectivity between users anddata will be distributed in a broader way. Kidd and Chen arguethat most people believe that web 3.0 will transform the wholearchitectural framework and the entire internet innovations (Kidd &Chen, 2009). Some criticize these assumptions saying that these arejust marketing strategies. There is also no practical demonstrationof the new model. They are only based on research. The paper attemptsto outline Web 2.0 from any new technologies, and it identifiescertain features that make it best for use today. In addition, itattempts to incorporate features that users think will be expected inthe future. The current features of web 2.0 help explore the featuresthat web 3.0 is likely to possess. The primary focus is oncomprehending web 2.0 and the current characteristics, web usersperspective on the framework of web 2.0 and essential applications ofweb 2.0 (Sankar & Bouchard, 2009). Further, the factorscontributing to its success, advantages and disadvantages areoutlined. The paper also analyzes the barriers that web 2.0 wouldexperience, and the features included in web 3.0.UnderstandingWeb 2.0 Inthe last few years, the web has changed from an avenue through whichinformation is shared to a channel where materials are created andreproduced. The founder of World Wide Web says that there is nodifferentiation between web 1.0 and web 2.0 because some of theelements adopted in web 2.0 were essential in web 1.0 (Myhill et al.,2009). The current webs 2.0 become popular in the year 2007 becausemost people believed that the features were impressive. Theyinterpreted the features arguing that it was flexible and facilitatedan easier interaction. Feedback was also quick as compared to web 1.0(Abbott, 2010).Frameworkof Web 2.0 Richardidentifies sharing as the major challenge affecting the know-howeconomy in today`s world. He says that what people know could bedocumented and stored in the database. Richard argues that, in thepast, computer systems were used for managing data and informationwhile any other kind of knowledge was contained in expert systems(Richards, 2009). Today, the expert knowledge is accessed usingsocial software such as weblogs and Wikis. This has enabledindividuals to participate globally leading to the development of web2.0. The web gives people the freedom to comment, create and shareinternet contents. The traditional models could not allow thiswithout editorial control and professional indexing (O`Reilly,2005).Adoptionof Web 2.0 Applications Theearly research analyzed the meaning of web 2.0, and the applicationsincluded. Linh argues that it can also be defined according to itscharacteristics (Linh, 2008). These are derived from the socialimpacts that it has or from a technology perspective. There arenumerous factors that an internet user considers when choosing anapplication. Some of the factors include cost, compatibility withpeople, simplicity of navigation and privacy features. The user wouldalso put in mind the user options available in participating on theinternet. The key features of Web 2.0 identified by Chawner includeWiki, Tag Clouds, Blog, content sharing, free download and socialbookmarking among others (Chawner, 2008). Chawner groups theapplications of web 2.0 into four roles that the user plays. First,Content Creator is where the web user plays a dynamic role increating new materials of different forms. The other role is ContentConsumers where the web user reads materials created by other users.Content Commenter requires the user to comment on contents developedby other people (Isaías et al., 2009). The last role is contentCollector, and the web user is allowed to bookmark websites orsubscribe from content sharing websites. The applications of Web 2.0are considered ideal because they enable users without technicalknowledge to share their information on the internet (Harrison &Barthel, 2009).CriticalSuccess Factors of Web 2.0 TheWeb 2.0 proves important to both the organization and individualusers. Organizations provide applications that are in the form ofservices and allow web users to access their sites in order to learnmore about the company (Isaías et al., 2009). The sites are accessedby people who have an interest in the company products and services.Users are also allowed to communicate with other users and even thepersonnel in these organizations. Studies show that a majority of thebusinesses have adopted the Web 2.0 model that makes them knownleading to their success. Some of these successful businesses as aresult of using Web 2.0 applications include Amazon that deals withonline marketplaces and Google that assists in searching information(Lassila & Hendler, 2007). They generate income that sustainsleading to growth and development. There are numerous successfulfactors that are attributed to Web 2.0. They include contentavailability that enhances easier user access, development tools andease of application among others (Abbott, 2010).Advantagesof Web 2.0’s Adoption Thereare numerous benefits of Web 2.0 as identified by O`Reilly. One ofthe benefits is that is cost effective. He argues that the Web 2.0 isissued as a service and not a package. This helps in providingeconomy of scale. O`Reilly also says that they are flexible andcompatible (O‟Reilly, 2005 cited in Chen, 2008). Individuals withlittle technology knowhow find it easier to use the application ofWeb 2.0. The other advantage is that they are user scalability. Theypromote interaction between servers and web users. In addition, theyprovide decentralization of publications. It means that web users canupdate contents with the help of these applications (Mahmood &Selvadurai, 2006). User interaction dimension and lightweight userinterface are an added advantage to these applications. There areindividual sites available that are beneficial to web users as theymeet their needs.Shortcomingof Web 2.0 Technologies TheWeb 2.0 is without some shortcoming. The development and actualpractical of new technology has some disadvantages. The migrationfrom one technology to the other can take an extended period(Hendler, 2008). Developers and producers of these applications delayin implementing these applications because they wait for the marketto form. This is a challenge because the market cannot be establishedwithout adequate products in the market. The solution to this problemoccurs when the manufacturers identifies that the user`s demand hasincreased, and they can supply and meet the demand (Isaías et al.,2009 Morato et al., 2008). Other disadvantages outlined includedeveloping human based applications that appear confusing and lack ofintelligent on these programs. There are also privacy challenges,lack of median authority, no proper support designs and poor inquiryinstructions among others (Tahamtan et al., 2010). These are regardedas the major challenges affecting the Web 2.0 (Morato et al., 2008Hsieh et al., 2008).Barriersto the Current Web 2.0 Technologies Despitemeeting the demands of the web users there is a higher probabilitythat these new technologies may face obstacles from the environmentthat limit their performance. These barriers can prevent theseapplications from delivering results as required (Anderson, 2007).One of the obstacles is regular repetition of the cycle and updatesto the services. The other barrier is on ethical issues that arerelated to the web usage. Research shows that web 2.0 was developedin the concepts of a free community (Abbott, 2010). This hinders itfrom giving optimum results. Further, there is the limitation ininterconnectivity across community and social fashions (Abel et al.,2007 Chan et al., 2009). The web provides an open platform whereeveryone can access information and update own contents. This raisesthe question of the credibility of these sites and the data it holds.The last obstacle facing web 2.0 is making sure that web designersand developers follow the guidelines for implementing theseapplications so that they cater for all including the disabled(Adams, 2010). Research shows that these barriers can be overcomethrough frequent studies and development effort.FeaturesIncorporated in Web 3.0 Theweb 3.0 is commonly known as the Semantic Web. It supports opencontent formats as well as processing information. It leads tointelligent applications that enable sharing and integration ofinformation in an efficient manner. The developers ensure that webusers can acquire information in a way they can understand and use itfor they own benefit (Lassila & Hendler, 2007). Theseapplications can also perform complex tasks for instance they cancompare data from various sources and provide the most meaningful tothe users. Most people believe that these features are ideal, andthis has increased the growing interest in the development of thistechnology (Kristaly et al., 2008). Motta & Sabou says that amajority of the organizations have commenced research on thistechnology through development activities. They believe that thedevelopment of Web 3.0 will be another vital evolution stage oftechnology. Motta & Sabou suggests that Web 3.0 supportsnumerous activities such as Semantic search, intelligent datapresentation, answering questions and automated browsing among others(Mahmood & Selvadurai, 2006). The two researchers also say thatthe web 3.0 has additional properties over web 2.0. They includemachine studying, microformats, language search and data mining. Thisgives the user a more complicated experience (Motta & Sabou,2006). According to Lassila & Hendler, web 3.0 is a combinationof knowledge representation and web technology. One of theorganizations that has adopted the technologies of Web 3.0 is Mondecain Europe and Ontoprise in German. Other companies identified tofollow suit are Microsoft and Oracle among others (Lassila &Hendler, 2007).Conclusions Theprimary aim of this paper was to analyze the evolution of technologyin relation to Web from the user’s point of view. The currentfeatures and web 2.0 are outlines as well as those of the nextgeneration. One of the features identified that binds all theapplications of web 2.0 is the social web. Numerous advantages arehighlighted that makes the web 2.0 ideal in today`s society. They areuser scalability, promote interaction between servers and web users,and they provide decentralization of publications. The web 2.0 facecriticisms such as privacy challenges, lack of median authority, noproper support designs and poor inquiry instructions. Barriers suchas ethical issues, credibility of these sites and limitation ininterconnectivity across social fashions limits technologyperformance. They are developed in various forms that meet thedemands of users. The Web 3.0 is aimed at addressing and overcomingthe barriers of web 2.0.
Abbott,R.(2010).Deliveringquality-evaluatedhealthcareinformationintheeraofWeb2.0: designimplicationsforIntuit:HealthandLifeSciences.HealthInformaticsJournal,16 (1),5–14.
Aharony,N.(2009).TheinfluenceofLISstudents`personalitycharacteristicsontheir perceptionstowardsWeb2.0use.JournalofLibrarianshipandInformationScience,41 (4),227–242.
Ankolekar,A.,Krötzsch,M.,Tran,T.,&Vrandecic,D.(2007).TheTwoCultures:Mashingup Web2.0andtheSemanticWeb.(pp.825-834).WorldWideWebConference Committee.
Blum,N.,Linner,D.,Krüssel,S.,Magedanz,T.,&Steglich,S.(2008).Definitionofa Web2.0Gatewayfor3rdPartyServiceAccesstoNextGenerationNetworks.Boston: Springer.
Bojars,U.,Breslin,J.,Finn,A.,&Decker,S.(2008).UsingtheSemanticWebforlinkingand reusingdataacrossWeb2.0communities.WebSemantics:Science,Servicesand AgentsontheWorldWideWeb,21–28.
Boulakfouf,S.,&Zampunieris,D.(2008).IntegratingWeb2.0FeaturesintoaLearning ManagementSystem.Paperpresentedatthe7thEuropeanConferenceone-Learning (ECEL`08),(pp.127-133).Cyprus.
Boulos,M.N.K.,&Wheeler,S.(2007).TheemergingWeb2.0socialsoftware:Anenabling suiteofsociable technologiesinhealthandhealthcareeducation.Health InformationandLibrariesJournal,24(1),2-23.
Chadwick-Dias,A.,Bergel,M.,&Tullis,T.S.(2007).SeniorSurfers2.0:ARe-examination oftheOlderWebUserandtheDynamicWeb.C.Stephanidis(Ed.):UniversalAccessin HCI,868–876.Chan,C.K.,Lee,Y.C.,&Lin,V.(2009).HarnessingWeb2.0 forCollaborativeLearning.Springerlink.
Chatti,M.A.,Dahl,D.,Jarke,M.,&Vossen,G.(2008).TowardsWeb2.0DrivenLearning Environments.Funchal:Wirderscheinenin:ProceedingsofInternationalConferenceon WebInformationSystems.
Chiang,I.-P.,Huang,C.-Y.,&Huang,C.-W.(2009).CharacterizingWeb Users‟Degreeof Web2.0-ness.JournalofTheAmericanSocietyforInformationScienceandTechnology, 60(7),1349–1357
Cifuentes,L.,Sharp,A.,Bulu,S.,Benz,M.,&Stough,L.M.(2009).DevelopingaWeb2.0– basedsystemwithuser-authoredcontentforcommunityuseandteachereducation. AssociationforEducationalCommunicationsandTechnology.
Hailpern,J.,Reid,L.G.,&Boardman,R.(2009).DTorial:AnInteractiveTutorial FrameworkforBlindUsersinaWeb2.0World.IFIPInternationalFederationfor InformationProcessing.
Harrisom,T.M.,&Barthel,B.(2009).WieldingnewmediainWeb2.0:exploringthe historyofengagementwiththecollaborativeconstructionofmediaproducts.New media&Society,11(1&2),155–178.
Hsieh,M.-C.,Kao,Y.-W.,Hsieh,S.-L.,&Yuan,S.-M.(2008).Web2.0Proxy:ANew FrameworkforWeb2.0WebsiteDevelopment.7thWseasInt.Conf.on TelecommunicationsandInformatics,(pp.27-30).
Kompen,R.T.,Edirisingha,P.,&Monguet,J.M.(2009).UsingWeb2.0Applicationsas SupportingToolsforPersonalLearningEnvironments.Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag Berlin.
Kristaly,D.M.,Sisak,F.,Truican,I.,Moraru,S.A.,& Sandu,F.(2008).Web2.0technologies inwebapplicationdevelopment.Athens:PETRA.
Morato,J.,Fraga,A.,Andreadakis,Y.,&Cuadrado,S. S. (2008).SemanticWeborWeb 2.0?SocializationoftheSemanticWeb.Springer-VerlagBerlinHeidelberg.
Preciado,J.C.,Linaje,M.,&Figueroa,F.S.(2008).AdaptingWeb1.0UserInterfacesto Web2.0Multi-deviceUserInterfacesusingRUX-Method.JournalofUniversal ComputerScience,14(13),2239-2254.
Ribera,M.,Porras,M.,Boldu,M.,Termens,M.,&Sule,A.(2009).WebContentAccessibility Guidelines2.0:Afurthersteptowardsaccessibledigitalinformation.Program: electroniclibraryandinformationsystems,43,392-406.
Sankar,K.,&Bouchard,S.A.(2009).EnterpriseWeb2.0Fundamentals.Indianapolis: Cisco Systems,Inc,.
Tahamtan,A.,Anjomshoaa,A.,Weippl,E.,&Tjo,A.M.(2010).ASOM-BasedTechnique foraUser–CentricContentExtractionandClassificationofWeb2.0withaSpecial ConsiderationofSecurityAspects.Berlin,Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag.