Web 2: some definitions
According Macaskill & Owen (2007), Dale Dougherty coined that term web 2.0, in 2004, while Tim O’Reilly and associates, popularized it. However, it should be noted that most writers associate the coining of the term with O’Reilly media. Tim O’Reilly defines Web 2.0 as ‘ the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform: delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an "architecture of participation," and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences.' (America Library Association 2006 citing Michael Stephens).
According to Carpenter & Steiner (2007) Web 2.0 is ‘Second generation of Web-based services and tools that emphasize online sharing and collaboration among users. It also refers to the transition from static HTML Web pages to a dynamic Web that is organized and based on serving Web applications to users’
‘"Web 2.0" is transforming the Web into a space that allows anyone to create and share information Online—a space for collaboration, conversation, and interaction; a space that is highly dynamic, flexible, and adaptable’ (Coombs 2007)
‘Web 2.0 is a term that people loosely apply to these new, easier to use web-based tools for content creation (also known as user generated content), connecting with people (also known as social networking), collaboration and many other forms of people to people interaction’ (Imark 2009)
‘A condensed definition of Web 2.0 is that it’s simply a term for generating discussions that represent all of the very latest and reasonably foreseeable widespread functions and devices that people utilize in an online modality’ (Lorenzo 2007)
Melville Committee (2009:15) maintain, as many other authors, that there is no agreed definition of web 2.0, and contended that web 2.0 is also known by other names which include the Social Web and social software. The committee states that: ‘ social software has been defined as ‘software that supports group interaction’.6Elaborations include ‘software that allows people to interact and collaborate online or that aggregates the actions of networked users’;7 ‘a set of internet services and practices that give voice to individual users’;8 and, in the specific context of learning, ‘networked tools that support and encourage individuals to learn together whilst retaining control over their time, space, presence, activity, identity and relationship.’
“Refers to a supposed second-generation of Internet-based services - such as social networking sites, blogs, wikis, communication tools, and folksonomies - that let people collaborate and share information online in ways previously un available’ (van Wyk 2009 quoting from thehatchergroup.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/glossary-of-new-media- terminology/)
References
Carpenter, C& Steiner, S. 2007. Using Web 2.0 Technologies to Push E-Resources. smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/1853/13640/2/236-fri-11_05.pdf (accessed 18 feburary2010).
Coombs, K.A. 2007. Building a Library Web Site on the Piilars of web 2.0. www.infotodayjconi (accessed 18 feburary2010).
FAO.2009.Information Management Resource Kit: Web 2.0 and Social Media for Development. http://www.imarkgroup.org/ (Accessed 18 February 2010)
Imark. 2009 see FAO.2009.
Lorenzo, G. 2007. Catalysts for Change: Information Fluency, Web 2.0, Library 2.0, and the New Education Culture. http://www.edpath.com/stn.htm. (Accessed 7 January 2010)
Macaskill, W & Owen D.2007.Web 2.0 to Go. www.lianza.org.nz/library/files/store.../Web2ToGo_WMacaskill.pdf (accessed 7 January 2010).
Melville Committee 2009 see United Kingdom. Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experience 2009
United Kingdom. Committee of Inquiry into the Changing Learner Experience .2009.Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World. Chairman: David Melville. www.clex.org.uk (accessed 18 feburary2010).
Van Wyk, J. 2009.Engaging clients through Web 2.0 tools: The Education Library, University of Pretoria. http://www.saoug.org.za/presentations/Engaging_clients_through_web2.pdf (accessed 18 feburary2010).
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
social web
social web, i think, is a better term for web 2. it aptly captures the spirit of web 2. social network sites run on web 2 wheels, which connect people and keep them in touch. these sites enable us to find our long lost school and college mates, meet and connect with like minded persons. besides, we do a number of things on these sites like swapping videos, pictures, music, chatting and emailing.
social web or social media is more representative term of the web 2, because it combines most, if not all, of those activities and tools that are web 2 technologies. web 2 is a social phenomena, and we are social animals and this might in part explain the resounding success and appeal web 2 has had.
the beauty of web 2, or social media or web is the ease of adaptation, the demystification of cryptic world of computer programming, and incorporating of the most defining and differentiating aspects of human being, that is socializing.
so why don't we drop the web 2 tag and replace it with social web or media ?
social web or social media is more representative term of the web 2, because it combines most, if not all, of those activities and tools that are web 2 technologies. web 2 is a social phenomena, and we are social animals and this might in part explain the resounding success and appeal web 2 has had.
the beauty of web 2, or social media or web is the ease of adaptation, the demystification of cryptic world of computer programming, and incorporating of the most defining and differentiating aspects of human being, that is socializing.
so why don't we drop the web 2 tag and replace it with social web or media ?
Thursday, February 25, 2010
libary 2
there seem to be no agreed definition of library 2, but there is a consensus on what
library 2 is intended to accomplish. This, i believe,is the most important aspect on the whole issue of library 2.
my understanding of this concept, is simply taking services to where the users are. if you are not chatting in one of the social networking sites, you might be Googling, or uploading music, your photos, videos or sharing the same. You could be using your computer or your mobile phone to do all these. so most of the times we are existing in the cyberspace.
By implementing library 2, the library will be taking its services to where the users are. Besides, the library will be making itself more relevant, and will become more visible.
library 2 is intended to accomplish. This, i believe,is the most important aspect on the whole issue of library 2.
my understanding of this concept, is simply taking services to where the users are. if you are not chatting in one of the social networking sites, you might be Googling, or uploading music, your photos, videos or sharing the same. You could be using your computer or your mobile phone to do all these. so most of the times we are existing in the cyberspace.
By implementing library 2, the library will be taking its services to where the users are. Besides, the library will be making itself more relevant, and will become more visible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)