WHAT ARE THE COMPARISONS BETWEEN WEB 2.0 AND WEB 3.0?………………..
According to Singer (2009), web 2.0 technologies support applications which facilitate collaboration of users on the World Wide Web, interoperability, information sharing, and design that is user-centred. O’Reilly (2008) explains that web 2.0 platform gives users the opportunity to collaborate and interact with other users on the internet as creators of web content in social media dialogues and in virtual web communities. Examples of web applications that use the web 2.0 technologies include sites that offer video sharing such as YouTube, sites for social networking, wikis, blogs, web applications, hosted services, and folksonomies.
On the other hand, web 3.0 platforms, otherwise known as semantic web, constitute a network of data woven to facilitate the understanding of the semantics of the information and data found on the World Wide Web by computing machines (Metz, 2009). Web 3.0 technologies go beyond the multi-linear approach taken by web 2.0 in the presentation of information by taking advantage of hyper-structures that lead to the components of hypertext. It represents information and knowledge that is structured semantically in human-readable hyperlinked web pages extended through machine readable page metadata that holds the relationship among related web pages, hence enabling agents that are automated to work on the internet, and intelligently execute tasks on behalf of the web users (Allemang 2011).
Web 2.0 was not a new version of the web or an update to the technical specifications of the original web framework (web 1.0). Rather, it is a collection of cumulative evolutionary changes in the way end users and software developers use the World Wide Web. In web 1.0, the user could only retrieve information, but web 2.0 platforms provided the users with storage facilities, software, and better interface through the browser. The main characteristics of web 2.0 platforms include dynamic content, scalability, user participation, rich user experience, metadata, and web standards. Openness, collective intelligence, and freedom in the user participation may also be considered among notable characteristics (Best 2009).
According to Gerber, Van, and Bernard (2009), web 3.0 platform upholds the properties of web 2.0 technologies but expands its lexicon and applications library. It has been viewed as a platform where the computer rather than human generates new information. The platform is more centred on applications that have high graphical capability with applications not necessarily based on the browser performing retrieval of information in a location-based or geographic station. The platform has promoted the development and the use of artificial intelligence in the web-based applications.
The Web 2.0 Platform technologies
As far as the server technologies are concerned, web 2.0 uses server side technologies such as Ruby, PHP, Perl, JSP, and Python to dynamically output data and information fetched from the data base. Web 2.0 allows the formatting of data by the website, and sharing of the data with other sites. The formatting is done before sharing to generate output that is machine readable in formats such as JSON and XML (RSS, Atom, and others). With data from a given site formatted in either of these forms, other websites can integrate portions of the functionality of the site into themselves making an effective link among the websites. With the complete implementation of the said pattern, data categorised more thoroughly and is therefore easier to find. In a nutshell, Ajax is the central technology used in web 2.0 due to its versatility in working with all browsers and the rich experience it provides the user. A language used to build in the web 2.0 platform should provide support for excellent web services. It should also be iterative enough to allow deployment and addition of features quickly, with much ease (Chatti, et al 2009).
Web 2.0 has been widely used especially in the social web where it has changed the way of communication among people. Due to the participation of end users in web application development, users have been involved in blogging, making contributions to RSS, social networking, podcasting, tagging, and social bookmarking. Web 2.0 platforms have also been used in marketing, education, and distribution of media in protocols that allow syndication of contents from various sites such as Resource Description Framework (RDF), Really Simple Syndication (RSS), and Atom which use XML-based formats. Other protocols that are more specialised such as XHTML Friends Network (XFN) and Friend of a Friend (FOAF) used for social networking have extended website functionality to allow the interaction of end users over the internet without websites that are centralized (Hendler & Goldbeck 2011).
According to thebluedoor (2010) the web 2.0 statistics indicate that facebook had 300 million users with a 59% per annum growth, linked in had 52 million users with a one million growth every 12 days while tweeter had more than 8 billion tweets since inception with a growth rate of 1959% per annum. Wikipedia had more than 31 million pages in English with more than 684 million users by the end of 2009. All these sites are built on the web 2.0 platform.
The Web 3.0 Platform technologies
Yu (2010) explains that web 3.0 platform has been identified as the technology where the computers rather than humans generate new information on the web. However, it is notable that web 3.0 platform is built and enhanced on the web 2.0 platform with the same technologies but in an advanced form. Web 3.0 allows the convergence of the physical and virtual worlds with a development layer which allows the inclusion of three-dimension video simulations, television quality open video, human-constructed semantic standards, augmented reality and pervasive wireless, broadband, and sensors. The web 3.0’s augmented reality and early geo-social are extended from the web 2.0’s social networks and participatory technologies into three- dimensional space. Smart (2010) explains the peak of the web 3.0’s performance as allowing vast diffusion NTSC and better quality open video to laptops, television, mobile devices, and tablets. The web 3.0 is being looked as an era in which the television is swallowed by the internet. Siegel (2009) explains that 3.0 platforms have seen the coming up of machine-constructed, statistical algorithms, and semantic tags which are driven by conversational interfaces that are broadly and collectively used.
According to Inanova and Inanova (2010), the web 3.0 or the semantic web is developed on standard tools such as RDF Schema, RDF, RDF Query Language (SPARQL), XML Schema, XML, and Web Ontology Language (OWL). Semantic Web Stack is used to organise the tools. The functionality of the tools is as follows: XML schema provides and restricts the content and the structure of XML documents while XML provides the syntax for the structure of document formatting but does not associate the meaning and semantics of the document contents. Turtle may be used in the place of XML. RDF is a crucial standard in Semantic web and is used as the language for data model expression. The data models synchronise resources and the relationships among them. A model based on RDF may be represented in N3, RDFa or RDF/XML. The RDF Schema derives from RDF and is the vocabulary used for describing classes and properties of resources based on RDF with generalised-hierarchies’ semantics for the classes and properties. OWL has extra vocabulary in describing classes and properties such as relationships between classes, equality, cardinality, enumerated classes, and characteristics of classes. SPARQL is the query language and the protocol used for semantic sources of data on the web. The Rule Interchange Format (RIF) is still an ongoing standardisation format for the Semantic Web Stack (Antoniou & Harmelen 2009).
Comparison between Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 platforms
Currently, the worldwide web still operates on the web 2.0 platform but is gradually and smoothly transitioning into the web 3.0 technologies. There is still a distinct detachment between the two platforms. However, the implementation of web 3.0 is not supposed to replace web 2.0 but rather improve and fix the constraints of web 2.0 (Suphakorntanakit 2009). In this section, the distinction between the two platforms is examined.
The major difference between web 2.0 and web 3.0 is in the objectives of the technologies in the two platforms. Whereas, web 2.0 intended to provide users and developers with a greater space for creativity, customisation, and interactivity through collaboration and sharing of information, while web 3.0 targets to create linked data sets on the web, most of which are created on the web 2.0 platforms.
In addition, there is a major difference in the way data analysis is done in both frameworks. In web 2.0, data analysis is done by human elements. This limits the level of data analysis that can possibly be realised given the limitations of human beings in knowledge, language, skills, and consistency. On the other hand, the web 3.0 platforms define relationships between data resources and their properties, and therefore data analysis is performed more efficiently since it is done by machine rather than human efforts.
Lastly, the creation of the content on the web 2.0 platform is done by individuals and organisations from all over the world. The content grows through the addition of more content to the web by the said creators. On the other hand, on the web 3.0 platforms, the computational machines on the internet, in addition to individuals and organisations, create the web content through the establishment of relationships between resources and their properties. Therefore, the web 3.0 platforms through the machines create new content through the reuse of the already available web content.
Currently, there are many typical representations of web 2.0 technologies on the internet. A good example includes the major search engines such as Google which uses Ajax technology to implement their functionality. Others include video sharing sites like YouTube, interactive social networking like Facebook, and Twitter, and the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Examples of websites that have implemented the web 3.0 technologies are the SIOC project and Dbpedia. Dbpedia has used the RDF technology in linking datasets on the online encyclopedia: Wikipedia While the SIOC project aim at using the same technology to integrate the online community.
Whereas web 2.0 has proven itself as an efficient platform for collective processing and sharing of data and information, it still lacks stable logical frameworks for analysing and inferring new knowledge and improving the quality of knowledge generated by human beings. It also lacks the relevant technology for knowledge management through automatic extraction and integration of the already available knowledge in databases. Web 3.0 builds the technology of web 2.0 to make the World Wide Web more interactive and responsive by the use of intelligent agents. The benefits added to the web 2.0 platforms by the web 3.0 include the improvement in data management, improved accessibility on mobile internet, data organisation, improved collaboration in the social media, the use of artificial intelligence to enhance customer satisfaction, deriving relationships in online databases, and many more benefits.
Agarwal, A. (2009). Web 3.0 concepts explained in plan English: presentation. Digital Inspiration. Accessed on 27 September 2011. Available from http://www.labnol.org/internet/web-3-concepts-explained/8908
Allemang, D & Hendler, J 2011, RDF the basis of the Semantic Web: Semantic Web for the Working Ontologist, 2nd edn, Morgan Kaufmann publishers.
Antoniou, G & Harmelen, F 2009, ‘A Semantic Web Primer’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics.
Best, D 2009, After Web 2.0: The Next Big Things or Next Big Internet Bubble?, Lecture on Web Information Systems,Techni sche University, Eindhoven.
Chatti, A Klamma, R Jarke, M & Naeve, A 2009, The Web 2.0 Driven SECI Model
Based Learning Process, The international conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.
Gerber, A Van der Merwe, A & Barnard, A 2009, A Functional Semantic Web architecture, European Semantic Web Conference 2009, ESWC’09, Tenerife.
Hendler, J &Goldbeck, J 2011, Metcalfe’s Law, Web 2.0, and the Semantic Web, University of Maryland, College Park.
Metz, C. (2009). Web 3.0. PCMAG.com. Accessed on 27 September 2011. Available at http://www.labnol.org/internet/web-3-concepts-explained/8908/
Inanova, M & Inanova, T 2010, Web 2.0 and web 3.0 environments: possibilities for
authoring and knowledge representation, Technical University Sofia, Bulgaria.
O’Reilly, T. (2008). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software.O’Reilly. accessed on 27 September 2011. Available at http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html
Siegel, DR 2009, Communicating with applications on Web 3.0 platform, O’Reilly Publishers.
Singer, JB 2009, The Role and regulation for technology in social work practice and E-therapy: Social work 2.0., Oxford University Press, New York.
Smart, J 2010, ‘The conversational interface’, Acceleration Watch Journal.
Suphakorntanakit, N 2009, Transition into web 3.0, Hochschule Furtwangen University, Germany.
Thebluedoor (2010). Social media and Web 2.0 statistics: a round-up. Accessed on 27 September 2011. Available at http://www.thebluedoor.com/2010/01/social-media-and-web-20-statistics.shtml
Yu, L 2010, Introduction to Semantic Web and Semantic Web Services, CRC Press.
Order with us now…………