Category web 2.0

Web 2.0 checklist used

Stephen Downes was brave enough to use my Web 2.0 checklist. I am honoured. I have still my doubts about several items, but I will develop the list as I go on. I must say that he used my list pretty well. He only left out the lowercase MicroContent idea. I have not been happy with that phrasing either and I got some feedback to improve it. So I hope he will use my next iteration.
 
I wonder whether he got any feedback.

Categories/tags: web 2.0 , web2.0; checklist;
PermaLink • (2) Comments • TrackBacks

Web as platform

Richard MacManus expands a bit on the Web as Platform definition. I agree with him on this. I am used to call this an Enabling Services layer (see also BlueMorpho.net). As you can see on this listing I put together some years ago, the idea was already there around Web 1.0, so I do not agree with him there. However I do agree that it improved with WebAPI’s, Soap, etc. But for me the concept goes back to object oriented programming, libraries, etc. And even in fact back to NeXTstep 3.0 (or so), when they had enabling services working over Internet.

Categories/tags: web 2.0 , web2.0; enabling; services;
PermaLink • (2) Comments • TrackBacks

Defining Web 2.0

Martin Lindner has a take at defining the contours at Web 2.0. I’ll go through his 5 points.
 
The Web as Platform is great defining attribute. For me this implies the existence of Web-services. That makes it easy to judge whether a service is Web 2.0 conformant. That it is why it appeared on my list. I however did not say much about the usage side of the equation. I talk about clients that use Web API’s (think Amazon), but naturally this is true for services as well. I formulated as data outside, service can read my data, through a feed or whatever. A long time ago, I created list of such Enabling Services (see BlueMorpho.net). However I no longer maintain the list.
 
Point of Presence. I am not sure whether I understand this sentence. I think it translates to my “feeds galore” requirement.
 
MicroContent based is for the first requirement indeed.
 
Second order content is for me the mix&match thing. Very important for Web 2.0.
 
For me Semantic Web is the same thing as structured MicroContent. If you start structuring you automatically add semantics.
 
Interestingly Doc Searls picked up Martin’s post with some additional comments. One of things he notes is that Web 2.0 is not business, which is an implication of the data outside thing. It will be a commons for supporting free markets and free culture. I like that one. The emphasis is on place and publishing, and that is what we will do with the publishing of MicroContent.

Categories/tags: web 2.0 , microcontent; web2.0;
PermaLink • Comments • TrackBacks

Web 2.0 checklist 2.0

After my first checklist I was not quite happy. I need more details. So I upgraded my checklist to a 10-point scale. That way I have a nice rating scale. The idea is that I put a service against the checklist, check the boxes, add the number of checked boxes and voila a rating.
 
I have come up with the following points:

• Structured MicroContent - a service should be able to handle structured MicroContent. This can be the data stored at the service or processed by the service;
• Data Outside - the data should be primarily outside. Thus main focus of a service should be processing MicroContent and not storing MicroContent. This also implies that the service should be able to get the outside data. This can either be by a feed (limited window) or an import function. This also implies that the user is in full control (datalibre compliant) of his data (edit, delete, etc.);
• Licenses - for each MicroContent Item the user determines the usage license. One can differentiate here between private data, i.e. data that is only for the user and thus has a very restrictive license, group data, where for each Item is determined which other user might do something with it, and public data, for which the Creative Commons licenses are valid. (remark: I might throw this one out, as it is strongly related to Data Outside);
• Feeds Galore - A service should have many feeds to which clients can subscribe. This feeds mix and match the processed MicroContent in any way imaginable. Feeds can be compound in nature and use many types of enclosures. These feeds allow for syndication of MicroContent;
• Web API’s - a service should offer many Web API’s, which allow their functionality to be integrated in other services;
• Desktop Integration - A service should not only live on the network, but also allow tight integration with the desktop. This can for instance be achieved with MicroContent clients.
• Single Identity - A user should not have to copy with creating identities at all services he wants to use. It should be sufficient to have a single identity (but multiple personae) that can exported to service;
• MicroWeb - the user should be able traverse MicroContent space on the field level. From a single field in a MicroContent Item, the user should be able to go to relevant other MicroContent Items. The user decides for himself what is relevant. Thus seeing a name “Arnaud Leene”, he should be able to go to the relevant FOAF-file, Weblog, tags, etc;
• Wild MicroContent - a service should support wild MicroContent structure. This implies that the structure is not set beforehand, but is determined by the user. There are no standard setting committees or services that set structure in stone;
• Placeholder - this checkpoint is a placeholder for something that I have not yet thought of, or seen on the Web;

Ok, this is checklist version 2.0. It is still a moving target. I might change some things as I experiment with applying it.

Update 1: I change the name of point 8 (lowercase MicroContent) to Wild MicroContent.

Categories/tags: MicroContent • web 2.0 , microcontent; web2.0; definition;
PermaLink

Web 2.0 compliant

I started looking at various services that handle MicroContent in some way. I am beginning to have a rating need, but what should I like/dislike. I think I am going to check whether a service is Web 2.0 compliant. For this covers the following aspects:

• control - a user should be able to edit or delete any stuff he put up at the service (datalibre);
• saving - the user should be able to export items he has created (datalibre);
• import - the user should be able to import items he created somewhere else. This might be through rss or could be a MT-formatted file. This also allows for all data to be external to the service;
• feeds - a service should offer feeds and a lot of the them (mix and match);
• api’s - the service should offer api’s. I am not sure whether I must be more specific here;

This list should be applicable to any kind of service, whether it is a hosting, a search, a aggregation or social network service. And thus I can create a nice five-point rating.

Categories/tags: web 2.0 , microcontent; web 2.0; datalibre;
PermaLink • (1) Comments • TrackBacks

Defining web 2.0

Troy Angrignon made a nice list in trying to define web 2.0 and the steps how to get there. There are some more things that I would like to add to the Web 2.0 mix: Structured MicroContent and openess.

Categories/tags: web 2.0 , microcontent; web2.0;
PermaLink • Comments • TrackBacks

Web 2.0: an attitude

Through TechCrunch I found this blog entry by Ian Davis. He makes the statement: Web 2.0 is an attitude not a technology.  He says that Web 2.0 is not only a technical thing, such as API’s and Semantics, but most importantly a social thing.
 
I quite like that view. In order to be able to get Web 2.0 to work, people must publish their MicroContent and open it up to the world. In that way it can be re-mashed to new interesting uses. But is starts with the people. They must also be willing to structure MicroContent for even more interesting things. And that will take an effort. So we need a social change first of all.

Categories/tags: web 2.0 , microcontent; web 2.0;
PermaLink • Comments • TrackBacks

Web 2.0

Bob Cringely presents his vision on how Web 2.0 will look like. His vision of Web 2.0 turns around API’s. And indeed this will deliver interesting services.
 
However I rather add Joe Reger’s perspective to Web 2.0. The data that end-users produce will be a big part of it as well. You can not deny that weblogs are now a big part of the web and RSS as well. And with RSS we are moving into Web 2.0 (or are we here talking about Web 3.0?). The next step will be structured weblogs, i.e. MicroContent.
 
Cringely asks where the value is for users. And that is a very important question. Why should users go through all the trouble of tagging and structuring? Well, aren’t they doing this already? Each time they fill in a form, they are structuring their data. The advantage for users will be the freeing of their data. Their data will no longer be locked in at Yahoo or whoever. Their structured data will be pooled between aggregators. End-user authors will gain much more visibility. And now the best aggregator will win. There still will a place for entrepreneurs, both in the hosting business as the aggregation business.

Categories/tags: web 2.0 , microcontent; services;
PermaLink • Comments • TrackBacks

Web 3.0

Paul Kedrosky has some comments on the Web 3.0 idea of Steve Mallett. He says that in web 2.0 the emphasis will turn from proprietary applications to proprietary data. I guess that this idea cam from the web-services idea.
 
I agree with him that it should be the other way around. When more and more MicroContent comes available that is published by end-users, the data is basically free and can be shared and pooled. The proprietary thing will be in the application field. And I guess that will slowly open up as well.

Categories/tags: web 2.0 , microcontent;
PermaLink • Comments • TrackBacks