pgt wikix - pgt201e2009

1.0

ARTICLE ABOUT WEB 2.0

2.0

INTERNET??

2.1

HISTORY


Commemorative plaque listing some of the early Internet pioneers

Before the wide spread of internetworking that led to the
Internet
, most communication
networks were limited by their nature to only allow communications between the stations on the
local network and the prevalent computer networking method was based on the central
mainframe computer

model. Several research programs began to explore and articulate principles
of networking between physically separate networks, leading to the development of the
packet
switching

model of digital networking. These research efforts included those of the laboratories
of
Donald Davies

(
NPL
),
Paul Baran

(
RAND

Corporat
ion), and
Leonard Kleinrock

at
MIT

and
at
UCLA
. The research led to the development of several packet
-
switched
networking

solutions
in the late 1960s and 1970s,
[1]

including
ARPANET

and the
X.25

protocols. Additionally, public
access and hobbyist networking systems grew in popu
larity, including
unix
-
to
-
unix copy

(UUCP)

and
FidoNet
. They were however still disjointed separate networks, served only by limit
ed
gateways

between networks. This led to the application of packet switching to develop a protocol
for internetworking, where multiple differen
t networks could be joined together into a super
-
framework of networks. By defining a simple common network system, the
Internet Protocol
Suite
, the concept o
f the network could be separated from its physical implementation. This
spread of internetworking began to form into the idea of a global network that would be called
the
Internet
, based o
n standardized protocols officially implemented in 1982. Adoption and
interconnection occurred quickly across the advanced telecommunication networks of the
western world, and then began to penetrate into the rest of the world as it became the de
-
facto
int
ernational standard for the global network. However, the disparity of growth between
advanced nations and the third
-
world countries led to a
digital divide

that is still a conc
ern today.

Following commercialization and introduction of privately run
Internet service providers

in the
1980s, and the Internet's expansion for popul
ar use in the 1990s, the Internet has had a drastic
impact on culture and commerce. This includes the rise of near instant communication by
electronic mail (
e
-
mail
), text based discussion foru
ms, and the
World Wide Web
. Investor
speculation in new markets provided by these innovations would also lead to the inflation and
subsequent collapse of the
Dot
-
com bubble
. But despite this, the Internet continues to grow.

2.2

WHY INTERNET IMPORTANT IN EDUCATION?

As we approach the 21st century, schools and communities across the nation are embarking
with
renewed determination to restructure K
-
12 education. State and local school districts are trying to
develop a new curriculum content standards, and are creating performance measures to assess
students progress according to standards. Resent research b
uilt a powerfully case against what
used to be accepted "truths" about learning and technology, traditional definitions of technology
effectiveness, and traditional models of the cost effectiveness of technology don't work (Jones,
Valdez, 1995).

Traditiona
lly, teachers are the "keepers of knowledge" and they transmit this knowledge to
students. For teachers, the traditional methods of teaching have meant tedious preparation of
lesson plans, copying from manuals in grant magnitude, the pressures from the adm
inistrators to
increase the level of students achievement, and the pressures associated with needing to teach a
roomful of students with varying degrees of knowledge and experience. Creativity gets more and
more remote as the access of resources declines.

With the introduction of the Internet to elementary schools, teaching methodology has to change.
Having computers in a corner of the room does not guarantee their use, particularly their
effective use. A computer laying in a corner of the classroom is not
productive for anybody.
There are stories about computers sitting unused in school because teachers do not know how to
integrate this technology into their classroom. School administrators need to invest not only in
hardware, but in adequate professional d
evelopment plans for teachers.

According to Vice President, Al Gore (WHPR 1995c) by the year 2000, 60% of the new jobs in
America will required advanced technological skills. Unfortunately, only 20% of our workforce
today possesses the skills that enable t
hem to compete in a technological world. While our work
places are moving swiftly into the Information Age, our classrooms are not keeping pace.
Today's work place is more demanding than ever before. It requires that workers think critically
and strategica
lly to solve problems. The worker must be able to work collaborative and well with
his/hers coworkers (Jones, Valdez, 1995). The SCANS report published by the National
Committee on Labor gives direction for educational reform by designating the skills whic
h are
required in the work place. The necessary skills are;



"the ability to identify and organize resources to complete tasks;



the ability to collaborate with others to work productively;



the ability to acquire, evaluate and use information;



the abilit
y to understand complex systems : and



the ability to work with and to continue to master a variety of technologies."

(Mitchell, p.12)

Tody students must be prepared for that environment, so many teachers are preparing students by
having them work cooperat
ively, through brainstorming, peer critiquing and conferencing (Jay,
1994).

Traditional teachers do not generally allow children to make authentic presentations of their
thoughts and opinions to their peers. Evard, M. (1994) mentioned that in a traditional

environment students are required to be passive. They are required to hand in their work to be
read over, but most of the time, this is done to get it "corrected," not to communicate something
the students care about the teachers. Evard believes that stud
ents can learn through asking and
answering authentic questions, which have meaning and are personally important to them. For
this the Internet has part of the solution.

Diane Ravitch, the former U.S. Secretary of Education said, in June 1992, that the qua
lity of
American education must improve dramatically in order to improve the dismal dropout rate in
our school, and that we know what works, we just don't do it. William Gates, the CEO of
Microsoft Corporation, states that teachers know what works, and tha
t is, to present ideas to
students in a way to draw them into the excitement of learning, to take advantage of their natural
curiosity, allowing them to interact with new information, and offer them relevant information so
it has meaning in their lives. Go
als 2000, Educate American Act, is the driving force behind the
effort to raise standards for students, teachers and parents (Riley, 1995). The vehicle for
accomplishing this huge task is believed to rely in the use of technology, especially the Internet
r
esources.

Generally, the adquisition of technology in elementary schools depends on an one time
investment. However, schools can not simply invest in technology at one point in time and
expect that their computer coverage will be adequate. The researcher w
onders if any business
corporation will share the same criteria. We all know that technology advances nearly every day.
School must budget for continued upgrades in their technology.

Computers in some schools help teachers to keep themselves trained on th
e latest equipment and
software. Teachers must constantly adapt their curriculum to the changing needs of their students
that computer technology can bring about (IFT Insight, 1996).With the Internet , teachers are no
longer necessarily the center of instr
uction. With the proper use of the WWW tools, students can
take control of their own learning at different levels. Cognitive research has confirmed that
students learn best when they are engaged with their studies, and when they are making decisions
and th
inking critically (Elmore, 1993). The role of the teacher begins to change to that of the
person who guides students towards finding and sorting through information. In recent years the
amount of information people must deal with is increasing exponentiall
y. It is unrealistic to
expect that teachers can teach all the necessary information that students will need to succeed in
a community that expects tougher requirements than ever before.

As President Clinton signed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, "Te
acher Education &
Professional Development
--
The goal is to provide teachers with the professional development
they need to help prepare students for the next century (WHPR, 1994a)." The basic intent of the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act is to improve lear
ning and teaching by creating a national
framework for education reform (Apple Inc. 1994). This can be done if teachers get the
necessary inservice and work together in order to provide uniform standards.

The Internet can play a major role in education re
form. Reform efforts center on authentic tasks,
with students taking more responsibility for their own learning. Teachers need to adapt
themselves to a changing technological society to prepare productive citizens. Traditional
methods of teaching are no lo
nger valid for the next century. New times demand new ways of
learning (Jones, Valdez, 1995).

In classrooms where technology is used to engage students in learning, teachers are no longer the
informational givers, they are facilitators, guides, and co
-
lear
ners. As facilitators, teachers
provide rich learning environments, experiences, and activities, create opportunities for students
to work collaborative, to solve problems, do authentic tasks, and share knowledge and
responsibility.

Students switch from pa
ssive to active learning. One important student role is that an explorer.
Students discover concepts, connections, apply skills by interacting with the physical world,
materials, technology, and other people. Such discovery
-
oriented exploration provides st
udents
with opportunities to make decisions while figuring out the components/attributes of events,
objects, people, or concepts (ISBE, 1995).

Steve Floyd (1991), author of the IBM Multimedia Handbook, said that multimedia allows
students to learn in the w
ay that they learn best, whether that be by reading the material, by
visualizing the material, by hearing it, or by being actively engaged. Engaged learners are ones
who are responsible for their learning, and because they are responsible they are energize
d by
learning. Teachers responding the survey agreed that there is a strong consensus that the use of
technology in the curriculum can promote engaged learning.

William Gates has this to say about the Internet: " Multimedia computing, then, is a powerful
t
ool for educators to use to develop lessons and materials. It is especially useful for the subjects
that are hardest to teach and most difficult for students to learn, because it uses the media that
teach those concepts most effetively." (p.1705).

Teachers

and students are learning to use the Internet in a variety of ways to enhance their
teaching and learning experiences. The WWW represents the latest in communication
technology, and much like the printing press's beginning days, it can be threatening to b
oth
students and teachers in the manner that it makes new demands and changes to expectations
associated with traditional models. The Internet provides an immediacy and global awareness
that has been unavailable to students. Students and teachers are able
to have interactions not only
in other parts of the country, but also around the world. From this they can learn about the life
and issues that impact on other people. Many teachers can get access to relevant discussions
hosted by the Internet. Educators c
an use these discussions and the ability to share experiences
with other educators for professional development and to combat the sense of professional
isolation.

2.3

WEB 1.0

Web 1.0

is a
retr
onym

which refers to the state of the
World Wide Web
, and any website design
style used before the advent of the
Web 2.0

phenomenon. It is the general term that has been
created to describe the Web before the "bursting of the
Dot
-
com bubble
" in 2001, which is seen
by many as a turning
point for the
internet
.
[1]

It is easiest to formulate a sense of the term Web
1.0 when it is used in relation to the
term
Web 2.0
, to compare the two and offer examples of
each.

Terry Flew, in his 3rd Edition of
New Media

described what he believed to characterize the
differences between Web 1.0 and
Web 2.0
:

"move from personal websites to blogs and blog site aggregation, from publishing to
participation, from web content as the outcome of large up
-
front investment to an ongoing and
interacti
ve process, and from content management systems to links based on tagging
(folksonomy)".

Flew believed it to be the above factors that form the basic change in trends that resulted in the
onset of the Web 2.0 craze.
[2]

The shift from Web 1.0 to
Web 2.0

can be seen as a result of technological refinements, which
included such adaptations as "broadband, improved browsers, and Ajax, to the rise of Flash
application platforms and the mass development of widgetization, such as Flickr and YouTube
badges".
[3]

As well as such adjustments to the internet, the shift from Web 1.0 to
Web 2.0

is a dir
ect result
of the change in the behaviour of those who use the World Wide Web. Web 1.0 trends included
worries over privacy concerns resulting in a one
-
way flow of information, through websites
which contained "read
-
only" material. Widespread computer illi
teracy and slow internet
connections added to the restrictions of the internet, which characterised Web 1.0.
[3]

Now, during
Web 2.0
, the use of the Web can be characterized as the decentralization of website content,
which is now generated from the "bottom
-
up", with many users being contributors and producers
of information, as well as the t
raditional consumers.

To take an example from above,
Personal web pages

were common in Web 1.0, and these
consisted of mainly static pages hosted on free hosting services

such as
Geocities
. Nowadays,
dynamically generated
blogs

and social networking profiles, such as Myspace and Facebook, are
mo
re popular, allowing for readers to comment on posts in a way that was not available during
Web 1.0.

At the Technet Summit in
November 2006
,
Reed Hastings
, founder and CEO of
Netflix
, stated a
simple formula for defining the phases of the Web:

“

Web 1.0 was dial
-
up, 50K average bandwidth,
Web 2.0 is an average 1 megabit of
bandwidth and Web 3.0 will be 10 megabits of bandwidth all the time, which will be the
full video Web, and that will feel like Web 3.0.

”

—
oee搠䡡獴sngs

p潭攠oy灩捡氠摥獩g渠nle浥湴猠潦⁡⁗e戠ㄮ〠獩瑥⁩湣汵摥l



Static pages instead of dynamic user
-
generated content.
[4]



The use of
framesets
.



Proprietary
HTML

extensions such as the
<
blink>

and
<marquee>

tags introduced during
the
first browser war
.



Online
guestbooks
.



GIF

buttons, typically 88x31
pixels

in size promoting web b
rowsers and other products.
[5]



HTML forms sent via
email
. A user would fill in a form, and upon clicking submit their
email client

would attempt to send an email containing the form's details.
[6]


2.4

WEB 2.0

Web 2.0
" is commonly associat
ed with
web development

and
web design

that facilitates
interactive
information sharing
,
interoperability
,
user
-
centered design
[1]

and
collaboration

on the
World Wide Web
. Examples of Web 2.0 include web
-
based communities,
hosted services
,
web
applications
,
social
-
networking sites
,
video
-
sharing sites
,
wikis
,
blogs
,
mashups

and
folksonomies
. A Web 2.0 site allows its users to interact with other users or to change website
content
, in contrast to non
-
interactive websites where users are limited to the passive viewing of
information that is provided to them.

The term is closely associated with
Tim O'Reilly

because of the
O'Reilly Media

Web 2.0
conference in 2004.
[2]
[3]

Although the term suggests a new version of the
World Wide Web
, it
does not refer to an update to any technical specifications, but rather to cumulative changes in
the ways
software developers

and
end
-
users

use the Web. Whether Web 2.0 is qualitatively
different from prior web technologies has been challenged by World Wide Web inventor
Tim
Berners
-
Lee

who called the term a "piece of jargon"
[4]
.

The term "Web 2.0"
was coined by Darcy DiNucci in 1999. In her article "Fragmented
Future," she writes
[5]

The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is
only an

embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear,
and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop The Web will be understood not
as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether th
rough which
interactivity happens. It will [...] appear on your computer screen, [...] on your TV set [...] your
car dashboard [...] your cell phone [...] hand
-
held game machines [...] and maybe even your
microwave.

Her use of the term deals mainly with We
b design and aesthetics; she argues that the Web is
"fragmenting" due to the widespread use of portable Web
-
ready devices. Her article is aimed at
designers, reminding them to code for an ever
-
increasing variety of hardware. As such, her use
of the term hi
nts at
-

but does not directly relate to
-

the current uses of the term.

The term did not resurface until 2003.
[6]
[7
]
[8]

These authors focus on the concepts currently
associated with the term where, as Scott Dietzen puts it, "the Web becomes a universal,
standards
-
based integration platform."
[9]

In 2004, the term began its rise in popularity when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the
first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Batelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined t
heir
definition of the "Web as Platform," where software applications are built upon the Web as
opposed to upon the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers
are building your business for you."
[10]

They argued that the activities of users generating content
(in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. According to
Tim O'Reilly
:

Web 2.0 is the
business

revolution

in the
computer industry

caused by the move to the
Internet

as
a
platform
, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.
[11]

From there, the term Web 2.0 was largely championed by bloggers and by tec
hnology
journalists, culminating in the 2006 TIME magazine Person of The Year
-

"You."
[12]

That is,
TIME selected the masses of users who were participating in content creation on socia
l
networks, blogs, wikis, and media sharing sites. The cover story author Lev Grossman explains:

It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic
compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million
-
channel pe
ople's network YouTube and
the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping
one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the
world changes.



Flickr
, a Web 2.0 web site that allows users to upload and share photos

Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. They can build on the
interactive facilities of "
Web 1.0
" to provide
"Network as platform"

computing, allowing users to
run software
-
applications ent
irely through a browser.
[3]

Users can own the data on a Web 2.0 site
and exercise control over that data.
[3]
[13]

These sites may have an "Architecture of participation"
that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it.
[2]
[3]

This stands in contrast to
traditional websites, the sort that limited visitors to viewing and whose content only the site's
owne
r could modify. Web 2.0 sites often feature a rich, user
-
friendly interface based on
Ajax
[2]
[3]

and similar client
-
side interactivity frameworks, or full
client
-
server

application frameworks

such as
OpenLaszlo
,
Flex
, and the
ZK framework
.
[3]
[13]
.

The concept of Web
-
as
-
participation
-
platform captures many of these characteristics.
Bart
Decrem
, a founder and former CEO of
Flock
, calls Web 2.0 the "participatory Web"
[14]

and
regards the Web
-
as
-
information
-
source as Web 1.0.

The impossibility of excluding group
-
members who don’t contribute to the provision of goods
from sharing profits gives rise to the possibility that rational members will prefer to withhold
their contribution of effort and
free
-
ride

on the contribution of others.
[15]

This requires what is
sometimes called
Radical Trust

by the management of the website. According to Best,
[16]

the
characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynam
ic content,
metadata
, web standards and
scalability
. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom
[17]

and collective intelligence
[18]

by way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential
attributes of Web 2.0.

Technology overview

Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of
client
-

and
server
-
side software,

content syndication

and the use of
network protocols
. Standards
-
oriented
web browsers

may use
plugins

and
software extensions

to handle the content and the user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide users
with
information storage
, creation, and disseminatio
n capabilities that were not possible in the
environment now known as "Web 1.0".

Web 2.0 websites typically include some of the following features and techniques. Andrew
McAfee used the acronym
SLATES

to refer to them:
[19]

Search

Finding information through keyword search.

Links

Guides to other related information.

Authoring

The ability to create and update content leads to
the collaborative work of many rather
than just a few web authors. In wikis, users may extend, undo and redo each other's work.
In blogs, posts and the comments of individuals build up over time.

Tags

Categorization of content by users adding one
-
word desc
riptions to facilitate searching,
without dependence on pre
-
made categories.

Extensions

Software that makes the Web an application platform as well as a document server.

Signals

The use of syndication technology such as
RSS

to notify users of content changes.

How it works

The client
-
side/web browser technologies typically used in Web 2.0 development are
Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (
Ajax
),
Adobe Flash
, and
JavaScript
/Ajax framework
s such
as
Yahoo! UI Library
,
Dojo Toolkit
,
MooTools
, and
jQuery
. Ajax programming uses JavaScript
to upload and download new data from the web server without undergoing a full page reload.

The data fetched by an
Ajax

request is typically formatted in
XML

or
JSON

(JavaScript Object
Notation) format, two widely used structured data formats. Since both of these formats are
natively understood by JavaScript, a programmer can easily use them to transmit structured data
in their web application. When this data is recei
ved via Ajax, the JavaScript program then uses
the
Document Object Model

(DOM) to dynamically update the web page based on the new data,
allowing for a rapid and
interactive user experience.

Adobe Flash

is another technology often used in Web 2.0 applications. As a widely available
plugin independent of
W3C

(World Wide Web Consortium, the governing body of web
standards and protocols), standards, Flash is capable of doing many things which are not
currently possible in
HTML
, th
e language used to construct web pages. Of Flash's many
capabilities, the most commonly used in Web 2.0 is its ability to play audio and video files. This
fact alone has allowed for the creation of cutting edge Web 2.0 sites such as
YouTube
, where
rich media is gracefully integrated with standard
HTML
.

In addition to Flash and Ajax, JavaScript/Ajax frameworks have recently become a v
ery popular
means of creating Web 2.0 sites. At their core, these frameworks do not use technology any
different from JavaScript, Ajax, and the DOM. What frameworks do is smooth over
inconsistencies between web browsers and extend the functionality availab
le to developers.
Many of them also come with customizable, prefabricated 'widgets' that accomplish such
common tasks as picking a date from a calendar, displaying a data chart, making a tabbed panel,
etc.

On the server side, Web 2.0 uses many of the same
technologies as Web 1.0. Languages such as
PHP
,
Ruby
,
Perl
,
Python
, and
ASP

are used by developers to dynamically output data using
information from files and dat
abases. What has begun to change in Web 2.0 is the way this data
is formatted. In the early days of the internet, there was little need for different websites to
communicate with each other and share data. In the new 'participatory web', however, sharing
d
ata between sites has become an essential capability. To share its data with other sites, a web
site must be able to generate output in machine
-
readable formats such as
XML
,
RSS
, and
JSON
.
When a site's data is available in one of these formats, another website can use it to integrate a
portion of that site's functionality into itself
, linking the two together. When this design pattern is
implemented, it ultimately leads to data that is both easier to find and more thoroughly
categorized, a hallmark of the philosophy behind the Web 2.0 movement.

Usage

The popularity of the term Web
2.0, along with the increasing use of blogs, wikis, and social
networking technologies, has led many in academia and business to coin a flurry of 2.0s,
[20]

including Library 2.0,
[21]

Social Work 2.0,
[22]

Enterprise 2.0, PR 2.0,
[
23]

Classroom 2.0,
Publishing 2.0, Medicine 2.0,
Travel 2.0
, Government 2.0
[24]
, and even
Porn 2.0
.
[25]

Many of
these 2.0s refer to Web 2.0 technologies as the source of the new version in their respective
disciplines and areas. F
or example, in the Talis white paper "Library 2.0: The Challenge of
Disruptive Innovation," Paul Miller argues

Blogs, wikis and RSS are often held up as exemplary manifestations of Web 2.0. A reader of a
blog or a wiki is provided with tools to add a comme
nt or even, in the case of the wiki, to edit the
content. This is what we call the Read/Write web.Talis believes that Library 2.0 means
harnessing this type of participation so that libraries can benefit from increasingly rich
collaborative cataloguing eff
orts, such as including contributions from partner libraries as well as
adding rich enhancements, such as book jackets or movie files, to records from publishers and
others.
[26]

Here,
Miller links Web 2.0 technologies and the culture of participation that they engender to the
field of library science, supporting his claim that there is now a "Library 2.0." Many of the other
proponents of new 2.0s mentioned here use similar methods.

Acco
rding to the
Global Language Monitor
, Web 2.0 is the one millionth word to enter the
English language

[27]
.

Web
-
based applications and desktops

Ajax

has prompted the development of websites that mimic desktop applications, such as
word
processing
, the
spreadsheet
, and
slide
-
show presentation
.
WYSIWYG

wiki

sites replicate many
features of PC authoring applications. Still other sites perform collaboration and
project
management

functions. In 2006
Google, Inc.

acquired one of the best
-
known sites of this broad
class,
Writely
.
[28]

Several browser
-
based "
operating systems
" have emerged, including
EyeOS
[29]

and
YouOS
.
[30]

Although coined as such, many of these services function less like a traditional operating system
and more as an application platform. They mimic the user experience of desktop operating
-
systems, offering features and appli
cations similar to a PC environment, as well as the added
ability of being able to run within any modern browser. However, these operating systems do not
control the hardware on the client's computer.

Numerous web
-
based application services appeared during

the
dot
-
com bubble

of 1997
–
2001
and then vanished, having failed to gain a critical mass of customers. In 2005,
W
ebEx

acquired
one of the better
-
known of these,
Intranets.com
, for $45 million.
[31]

Internet applications

X
ML and RSS

Advocates of "Web 2.0" may regard syndication of site content as a Web 2.0 feature, involving
as it does standardized protocols, which permit end
-
users to make use of a site's data in another
context (such as another website, a browser plugin, o
r a separate desktop application). Protocols
which permit syndication include
RSS

(Really Simple Syndication

—

also known as "web
syndication"),
RDF

(as in RSS 1.1), and
Atom
, all of them
XML
-
based formats. Observers have
started to refer to these technologies as "
Web feed
" as the usability of Web 2.0 evolves and the
more user
-
friendly Feeds icon suppl
ants the RSS icon.

Specialized protocols

Specialized protocols such as
FOAF

and
XFN

(both for social networking) extend the
functionality of sites or permit end
-
users to interact without centralized websites.

Other protocols, like
XMPP

enables services to users like
Services over the Messenger

Web APIs

Machine
-
based interaction, a common feature of Web 2.0 sites, uses two main approaches to
web APIs
, which allow web
-
based access to data and functions:
REST

and
SOAP
.

1.

RE
ST (Representational State Transfer) web APIs use
HTTP

alone to interact, with
XML

(eXtensible Markup Language) or
JSON

payloads;

2.

SOAP involves
POSTing

more elaborate XML messages and requests to a server that
may contain quite complex, but pre
-
defined, instructions for the server to follow.

Often servers use proprietary APIs, but standard APIs (for example, for posting to a blog or
notifying a blog upda
te) have also come into wide use. Most communications through APIs
involve XML or JSON payloads.

Web Services Description Language

(WSDL)
is the standard way of publishing a SOAP API and
there are
a range of Web Service specifications
.

See also
EMML

by the
Open Mashup Alliance

for enterprise mashups.

Criticism

The criticism exists that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new versi
on of the
World Wide Web

at
all, but merely continues to use so
-
called "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts. Techniques such
as
AJAX

do not replace underlying protocols like
HTTP
, but add an additional layer of
abstraction on top of them. Many of the ideas of Web 2.0 had already b
een featured in
implementations on networked systems well before the term "Web 2.0" emerged.
Amazon.com
,
for instance, has allowed users to write reviews and consumer guides since its
launch in 1995, in
a form of self
-
publishing. Amazon also opened its API to outside developers in 2002.
[32]

Previous developments also came from research in
computer
-
supported collaborative learning

and
computer
-
supported

cooperative work

and from established products like
Lotus Notes

and
Lotus Domino
.

In a podcast interview
[4]
,
Tim Berners
-
Lee

described the term "Web 2.0" as a "piece
of jargon":

"Nobody really knows what it means...If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people
to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along."
[4]

Other criticism has included the term “a second bubble” (referring to the
Dot
-
com bubble

of
circa 1995
–
2001), suggesting that too many Web 2
.0 companies attempt to develop the same
product with a lack of business models.
The Economist

has also written about "Bubble 2.0".
[33]

Venture capitalist

Josh Kopelman

noted that Web 2.0 had excited onl
y 53,651 people (the
number of subscribers at that time to
TechCrunch
, a Weblog covering Web 2.0 startups and
technology news), too few users to make them an economically viable target

for consumer
applications.
[34]

Although
Bruce Sterling

reports he's a fan of Web 2.0, he thinks it is now dead
as a rallying concept.
[35]

Critics have cited the language used to describe the hype cycle of Web 2.0
[36]

as an example of
Techno
-
utopianist

rhetoric.
[37]

Critics such as
Andrew Keen

argue that Web 2.0 has created a cult of digital
narcissis
m

and
amateurism, which undermines the notion of expertise by allowing anybody, anywhere to share
(and place undue value upon) their own opinions about any subject and post any kind of content
regardless of their particular talents, knowledgeability, crede
ntials, biases or possible hidden
agendas. He states that the core assumption of Web 2.0, that all opinions and user
-
generated
content are equally valuable and relevant is misguided, and is instead "creating an endless digital
forest of mediocrity: uninfor
med political commentary, unseemly home videos, embarrassingly
amateurish music, unreadable poems, essays and novels," also stating that
Wikipedia

is full of
"mistakes, half truths and m
isunderstandings".
[38]

Trademark

In November 2004,
CMP Media

applied to the
USPTO

for a
service mark

on the use of the term
"WEB 2.0" for live events.
[39]

On the basis of this application, CMP Media sent a
cease
-
and
-
desist

demand to the Irish non
-
profit organization
IT@Cork

on May 24, 2006,
[40]

but retracted it
two days later.
[41]

The "WEB 2.0" service mark registration p
assed final PTO Examining
Attorney review on May 10, 2006, and was registered on June 27, 2006.
[39]

The
European Union

application (application number 004972212, which would confer unambiguous status in Ireland)
remains currently

pending after its filing on March 23, 2
006.

3.0

WHAT IS IP ADRESS AND URL?

IP address

An
Internet Protocol

(
IP
)
address

is a numerical label that is assigned to devices participating
in a
computer network

utilizing the
Internet Protocol

for communication between its nodes.
[1]

An
IP address ser
ves two principal functions in networking: host
identification

and location
addressing
. The role of the IP address has also been characterized as follows:
"A
name

indicates
what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how to get
there."
[2]

The original designers of TCP/IP defined an IP address as a
32
-
bit

number
[1]

and this system,
now named
Internet Protocol Version 4

(IPv4), is still in use today. However, due to the
enormous growth of the Internet an
d the resulting depletion of the address space, a new
addressing system (
IPv6
), using 128 bits for the address, was developed in 1995
[3]

and last
standardized by
RFC 2460

in 1998.
[4]

Although IP addresses are stored as
binary numbers
, they
are usually displayed in
human
-
readable

notations, such as 208.77.188.166 (for
IPv4
), and
2001:db8:0:1234:0:567:1:1 (for
IPv6
).

The Internet Protocol also has the task of
routing

data
packets

between networks, and IP
addresses specify the locations of the source and destination nodes in

the
topology

of the
routing

system. For this purpose, some of the bits in an IP address are used to desig
nate a
subnetwork
.
The number of these bits is indicated in
CIDR notation
, appended to the IP address, e.g
.,
208.77.188.166/24
.

With the development of
private networks

and the threat of
IPv4 address exhaustion
, a group of
private address spaces was set aside by
RFC 1918
. These
private addresses

may be used by
anyone on private networks. They are often used with
network address translators

to connect to
the global
public

Internet.

The
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

(IANA) manages the IP address space allocations
globally. IANA works in cooperation with five
Regional Internet Registries

(RIRs) to allocate IP
address blocks to
Local Internet Registries

(Internet service providers) and other
entities.


4.0

STATISTIC

TOP 20 COUNTRIES WITH

THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF INTERNET USERS




TOP 20 COUNTRIES WITH HIGHEST NUMBER OF INTERNET USERS


#

Country or
Region

Population,

2009 Est

Users

Latest Data

% Population

(Penetration)

Growth

2000
-
2009

% of
World

Users

1

China

1,338,612,968

338,000,000

25.3 %

1,402.2 %

20.3 %

2

United States

307,212,123

227,636,000

74.1 %

138.7 %

13.6 %

3

Japan

127,078,679

94,000,000

74,0 %

99.7 %

5.6 %

4

India

1,156,897,766

81,000,000

7.0 %

1,520.0 %

4.9 %

5

Brazil

198,739,269

67,510,400

34.0 %

1,250.2 %

4.0 %

6

Germany

82,329,758

55,221,183

67.1 %

130.1 %

3.3 %

7

United Kingdom

61,113,205

48,755,000

79.8 %

216.6 %

2.9 %

8

France

62,150,775

42,050,465

67.7 %

394.7 %

2.5 %

9

Russia

140,041,247

38,000,000

27.1 %

1,125.8 %

2.3 %

10

Korea

South

48,508,972

37,475,800

77.3 %

96.8

2.2 %

11

Italy

58,126,212

29,140,144

50.1 %

120.8 %

1.7 %

12

Spain

40,525,002

28,628,959

70.6 %

431.4 %

1.7 %

13

Mexico

111,211,789

27,400,000

24.6 %

910.2 %

1.6 %

14

Turkey

76,805,524

26,500,000

34.5 %

1,225.0 %

1.6 %

15

Indonesia

240,271,522

25,000,000

10.4 %

1,150.0 %

1.5 %

16

Canada

33,487,208

23,999,500

71.7 %

89.0 %

1.4 %

17

Iran

66,429,284

23,000,000

34.6 %

9,100.0 %

1.4 %

18

Vietnam

88,576,758

21,524,417

24.3 %

10,662.2 %

1.3 %

19

Poland

38,482,919

20,020,362

52.0 %

615.0 %

1.2 %

20

Argentina

40,913,584

20,000,000

48.9 %

700.0 %

1.2 %

TOP 20 Countries

4,317,514,564

1,274,862,230

29.5 %

341.6 %

76.4 %

Rest of the World

2,450,290,644

394,008,178

16.1 %

445.3 %

23.6 %

Total World
-

Users

6,767,805,208

1,668,870,408

24.7 %

362.3 %

100.0 %


NOTES: (1) World Internet User Statistics were updated for June 30, 2009. (2) Additional data for individual
countries and regions may be found by clicking each country name. (3) The most recent user information
comes from data published by
Nielsen Online
,
International Telecommunications Union
, Official country
reports, and other trustworthy research sources. (6) Data from this site m
ay be cited, giving due credit and
establishing an active link back to
Internet World Stats
. Copyright © 2001
-

2009, Miniwatts Marketing
Group. All rights reserved.











Internet Usage in Asia

Internet Users & Population Statistics

for 35 countries and regions in Asia

INTERNET USERS AND POPULATION STATISTICS FOR ASIA

ASIA REGION

Population

( 2009 Est. )

% Pop.

of World

Internet Users,

Latest Data

Penetration

(% Population)

User
Growth

( 2000
-
2009
)

Users %

of World

Asia Only

3,808,070,503

56.3 %

704,213,930

18.5 %

516.1 %

42.2 %

Rest of the
World

2,959,734,705

43.7 %

964,656,478

32.6 %

291,1 %

57.8 %

WORLD
TOTAL

6,767,805,208

100.0 %

1,668,870,408

24.7 %

362.3 %

100.0 %

NOTES: (1) Asiatic Internet Usage and Population Statistics were updated for June 30, 2009. (2) Population
numbers are based on data from the
US Census Bureau
. (3) The most recent usage comes mainly from d
ata
published by
Nielsen Online

,
ITU

, official country statistics and other trustworthy local sources. (4) Data on this
site may be cited, giving due

credit and establishing an active link back to
Internet World Stats

. (5) For definitions
and help, see the
site surfing guide
. Cop
yright © 2009, Miniwatts Marketing Group. All rights reserved.




Telecommunications and Broadband in Asia
-

Special Reports
.



ASIA INTERNET USAGE AND POPULATION

ASIA

Population

( 2009 Est.)

Internet Users,

(Year 2000)

Internet Users,

Latest Data

Penetration

(% Population)

User
Growth

( 2000
-
2009
)

Users
(%)

in Asia

Afganistan

28,395,716

1,000

500,000

1.8 %

49,900.0 %

0.1 %

Armenia

2,967,004

30,000

172,800

5.8 %

476.0 %

0.0 %

Azerbaijan

8,238,672

12,000

1,500,000

18.2 %

12,400.0 %

0.2 %

Bangladesh

156,050,883

100,000

500,000

0.3 %

400.0 %

0.1 %

Bhutan

691,141

500

40,000

5.8 %

7,900.0 %

0.0 %

Brunei Darussalem

388,190

30,000

187,900

48.4 %

526.3 %

0.0 %

Cambodia

14,494,293

6,000

70,000

0.5 %

1,066.7 %

0.0 %

China

*

1,338,612,968

22,500,000

338,000,000

25.3 %

1,402.2 %

48.2 %

Georgia

4,615,807

20,000

360,000

7.8 %

1,700.0 %

0.1 %

Hong Kong

*

7,055,071

2,283,000

4,878,713

69.2 %

113.7 %

0.7 %

India

1,156,897,766

5,000,000

81,000,000

7.0 %

1,520.0 %

11.6 %

Indonesia

240,271,522

2,000,000

25,000,000

10.4 %

1,150.0

%

3.6 %

Japan

127,078,679

47,080,000

94,000,000

74.0 %

99.7 %

13.4 %

Kazakhstan

15,399,437

70,000

1,900,600

12.3 %

2,615.1 %

0.3 %

Korea, North

22,665,345

--

--

--

--

0.0 %

Korea, South

48,508,972

19,040,000

37,475,800

77.3 %

96.8 %

5.3 %

Kyrgystan

5,431,747

51,600

750,000

13.8 %

1,353.5 %

0.1 %

Laos

6,834,345

6,000

100,000

1.5 %

1,566.7 %

0.0 %

Macao

*

559,846

60,000

238,000

42.5 %

296.7 %

0.0 %

Malaysia

25,715,819

3,700,000

16,902,600

65.7 %

356.8 %

2.4 %

Maldives

396,334

6,000

71,700

18.1 %

1,095.0 %

0.0 %

Mongolia

3,041,142

30,000

320,000

10.5 %

966.7 %

0.0 %

Myanmar

48,137,741

1,000

40,000

0.1 %

3,900.0 %

0.0 %

Nepal

28,563,377

50,000

397,500

1.4 %

695.0 %

0.1 %

Pakistan

174,578,558

133,900

18,500,000

10.6 %

13,716.3 %

2.6 %

Philippines

97,976,603

2,000,000

24,000,000

21.1 %

932.5 %

2.9 %

Singapore

4,657,542

1,200,000

3,104,900

66.7 %

158.7 %

0.4 %

Sri Lanka

21,324,791

121,500

1,148,300

5.4 %

845.1 %

0.2 %

Taiwan

22,974,347

6,260,000

15,143,000

65.9 %

141.9 %

2.2 %

Tajikistan

7,349,145

2,000

484,200

6.6 %

24,110.0 %

0.1 %

Thailand

65,998,436

2,300,000

13,416,000

20.3 %

483.3 %

1.9 %

Timor
-
Leste

1,131,612

-

1,500

0.1 %

0.0 %

0.0 %

Turkmenistan

4,884,887

2,000

70,000

1.4 %

3,400.0 %

0.0 %

Uzbekistan

27,606,007

7,500

2,416,000

8.8 %

32,113.3 %

0.3 %

Vietnam

88,576,758

200,000

21,524,417

24.3 %

10,662.2 %

3.1 %

TOTAL ASIA

3,808,070,503

114,304,000

704,213,930

18.5 %

516.1 %

100.0 %

NOTES: (1) The Asian Internet Statistics were updated for June 30, 2009. (2) CLICK on each country name to see
detailed data for individual countries and regions. (3) The demographic (population) numbers are based on data
contained in
Census Bureau
. (4) The usage numbers come from various sources, mainly from data published by
Nielsen Online

,
ITU

, and
other trustworthy sources. (5) Data may be cited, giving due credit and establishing an
active link to
Internet World Stats
. (6) For definitions and help, see the
site surfing guide

. (*) For statistical
purposes, China figures do not include SAR Hong Kong and SAR Macao which are reported separately. ©
Copyright 2009,
www.miniwatts.com

, Miniwatts Marketing Group. All rights reserved.