web 2.0 and the geoweb part 1: web 2.0 examples

Web 2.0 ExamplesInfluencing the Geoweb

Introduction to the GeowebGregory L. GuntherUniversity of Colorado at Denver

(Karp 200 7)

Tim O’Reilly Definition of Web2.0

I said I'm not fond of definitions, but I woke up this morning with the start of one in my head:  Web 2.0 is 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.

(O’Reilly, 2005)

I define Web 2.0 as the design of systems that harness network effects to get better the more people use them, or more colloquially, as “harnessing collective intelligence.” This includes explicit network-enabled collaboration, to be sure, but it should encompass every way that people connected to a network create synergistic effects.

(Carpenter 2008)

Before We Proceed!

Interoperability Webservices Internet as a platform (foundation of

web 2.0) Models and Patterns

Interoperiblity

Interoperability: is connecting people, data and diverse systems. The term can be defined in a technical way or in a broad way, taking into account social, political and organizational factors. System specific: “the ability to exchange and use

information across a large, heterogeneous network made up of several local information system nodes.”

Semantic Interoperability: is the ability of two or more computer systems to exchange information and have the meaning of that information accurately and automatically interpreted by the receiving system.

(Interoperability, 2009)

Achieving Interoperability Web 1.0

JDBC, CORBA, DCOM Web 2.0

Coarse Grained XML encoded address vs. individual method calls

(CORBA and DCOM) More close alignment with business process, not its

parts Loosely Coupled

Plug and Play Enterprise data models can change but won’t

break applications Message based

Web Services XML, WMS, WFS

Webservices Based on the broad acceptance of XML for

data encoding, transport and messaging Microsoft Definition

“Web services are applications that use standard transports, encodings, and protocols to exchange information. With broad support across vendors and businesses, Web services enable computer systems on any platform to communicate over corporate intranets, extranets, and across the Internet with support for end-to-end security, reliable messaging, distributed transactions”

W3C Definition “software system designed to support interoperable

Machine to Machine interaction over a network. Web services are frequently just application programming interfaces (API) that can be accessed over a network, such as the Internet, and executed on a remote system hosting the requested services. “(Webservices, 2009)

Why Webservices

Services are reusable units providing business functionality that are:Clearly defined using standard policies,

practices, and frameworksClearly described (xml)AutonomousAbstractions of the underlying business

logic and functionality Actual overlay process not necessary

Easy to understand: one party delivers a service according to a contract with the other party

(King, 2006)

Is Everything On the Web A Webservice

NO! The WWW provides mechanism for

people and organizations to share information

Many web pages provide “services” to the user that are supported by a variety of software, most of this functionality is not currently created with Web Services

Built on the same basic standards

The Internet Is The Foundation of Web 2.0

Patterns and Models

Tools for building system architectures and future system implementationsAbstract, durable and can be repurposed

across domainsPattern Formulation

Users can click on features within an ArcIMS website to obtain attribute Data

An entity obtains information about geographic features online

(Govenor et al. 2009)

Pattern Formulation

(Govenor et al. 2009)

PatternContext

Derived RequirementsProblem

Business problem (story)Context

Generalized• Specifications, static structure, dynamic behavior

Consequences References Business problem resolved Implementations• Known use

Reference Model

A

B C

D E

F G

H

Model

Models, Patterns, Architectures: Oh My!

(OASIS, 2006)

Tim O’s List of 1.0 vs. 2.0 Examples

O’Reilly, 2005)

DoubleClick AdSense

Ofoto or SnapFish Flickr

Personal Websites Blogs

HTML with content Intended for

specific groups (family and friends)

1 way communication (no comments)

HTML with content but also feed (RSS)

Intended for wider communities

Much easier to find (search engines, blog crawlers, aggregators) because of feed

Encourage community participation (comments)

Community affiliation with BlogRoll

Screenscaping Webservices “Crawling” web

pages for data Integration of

webpages Unstructured

Structured and predictable

Content is data oriented, not presentation

Based on open standards

Integration is the goal, not a hack

Context of data integration

Taxonomies Folksonomies Yahoo Directory

Tag Cloud

GeographyNetwork/USGS GeodeArcGIS Online/WeoGeo

ArcIMS ArcGIS Server

Modeling Web 2.0

Users

Client applications/runtimes

Connectivity/reachability

Services

Capabilities

(Govenor et al. 2009)

Web 2.0 Reference Architecture

(Govenor et al. 2009)

Client application tier

Service tier

Resource tier

Standards protocols

Client Tier

Controller State management Security Virtual machine Rendering Communication

(Govenor et al. 2009)

Service Tier

Service provider interface Business logic Invocation layer

(Govenor et al. 2009)

Resource Tier

Database File system Legacy systems

(Govenor et al. 2009)

Common Web 2.0 Patterns Influencing the Geoweb Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) Software as a Service (SaaS) Participation-Collaboration Asynchronous Particle Update Mashup Rich User Experience Collaborative Tagging Structured Information

Formulated By Real Examples….

References Cited Carpenter, Hutch. Tim O’Reilly Course Corrects the Definition of

Web 2.0. Weblog entry. I’m Not Actually A Geek. October 1, 2008. http://bhc3.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/tim-oreilly-course-corrects-the-definition-of-web-20/.

Governor, James, Dion Hunchcliffe and Duane Nickull (2009). Web 2.0 Architectures. California: O’Reilly Media Inc.

Interoperability. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 7 Aug 2009, 10:13 UTC. 7 Aug 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interoperability&oldid=306573452.

Karp, David. A Web 2.0 Tag Cloud. Weblog entry. A Tangie Slice of Web 2.o. September 25, 2007. http://tangyslice.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/a-web-20-tag-cloud/.

King, JJ. SOA What? Introduction to Service Oriented Architecture. Rocky Mountain Oracle Users Group. Denver, 2006.

References Cited

OASIS. (2006). Reference Model for Service Oriented Architecture 1.0. http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/19679/soa-rm-cs.pdf

O'Reilly, Tim. Web 2.o: Compact Definition. Weblog entry. O’Reilly Radar. October 2005. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web-20-compact-definition.html.

Web service. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 7 Aug 2009, 18:12 UTC. 7 Aug 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_service&oldid=306643330.