In other words, Web 1.0 was something created by individuals, and Web 2.0 is the Web through the lens of business, user-leveraged experience, and market drive research. -Alexis On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Lane DeNicola wrote: ::Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:11:50 -0400 ::From: Lane DeNicola <denicola@alum.rpi.edu> ::Reply-To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org ::Subject: Re: [Air-l] how to pin down web 2.0 :: ::Mark Warschaur mentioned O'Reilly Media as the cited progenitor of the ::term Web 2.0, and I'd argue Tim O'Reilly's (rather lengthy) 2005 ::article--appropriately titled "What is Web 2.0?"--is probably still ::the best general source on the concept: :: ::http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.h... :: ::According to the concept as built there, Alex Halavais is effectively ::right, that the term denotes "companies that have attracted funding or ::make money on the web over the last few years," but also that "it ::suggests some kind of breaking point with earlier approaches to ::design," to wit: :: ::"In exploring the seven principles above, we've highlighted some of ::the principal features of Web 2.0. Each of the examples we've explored ::demonstrates one or more of those key principles, but may miss others. ::Let's close, therefore, by summarizing what we believe to be the core ::competencies of Web 2.0 companies: :: :: * Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability :: * Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get ::richer as more people use them :: * Trusting users as co-developers :: * Harnessing collective intelligence :: * Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service :: * Software above the level of a single device :: * Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models :: ::The next time a company claims that it's "Web 2.0," test their ::features against the list above. The more points they score, the more ::they are worthy of the name. Remember, though, that excellence in one ::area may be more telling than some small steps in all seven." :: ::I'd advocate the use of the term, if only because of its circulation ::as industry vernacular, but its use should be well-qualified. As a ::fluid construct (one used here to designate "companies with certain ::competencies," rather than, say, qualities of specific technologies) ::perhaps the best course would be to qualify it as "O'Reilly's (or ::whomever's) conceptualization of Web 2.0." :: ::-- ::Lane DeNicola ::Doctoral Candidate | Dept. of Science & Technology Studies ::Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute ::http://www.nacresky.com/lad ::Tried the Science Studies Search Engine? <http://www.nacresky.com/ssse> ::_______________________________________________ ::The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list ::is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org ::Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org :: ::Join the Association of Internet Researchers: ::http://www.aoir.org/ ::