A- + .: 8 "? < 7 ? < ( ! 0 0 ) * IT and internet have changed the paradigm of the libraries. The libraries in the 21st century are confronted with issues involving constantly increasing information overload, changing patterns of resource management, new and growing technologies, specialized needs and expectations of users, which are threatening the very existence of the usual functioning of libraries. The greate work done by Tim Bernus Lee to discover the W3. Now User wants most freely to himself other than depending on web authentication. Web 1.0 technologies were platform;based whereas Web 2.0 offers the web as a platform old web companies offered products you could run on your Windows, Mac, or Linux computer but the new generation of web companies offers services, which are delivered on the web itself. There are a number of important innovations, which are expected to play a pivotal role in the introduction of Web 2.0. In addition to this, some web site are now capable of carrying out project management functions. The key advantage they have over traditional operating system is that they are mare functional, and they can be run almost every browsers that is available today’s. Another innovation that will be seen in web 2.0 is rich internet application. ! " Web 2.0 + + .:N Web 2.0 is term that was introduced in 2004 and refers to the second generation of the World Wide Web. The term "2.0" comes from the software industry, where new versions of software programs are labeled with an incremental version number. Like software, the new generation of the Web includes new features and functionality that was not available in the past. However, Web 2.0 does not refer to a specific version of the Web, but rather a series of technological improvements. Web 2.0 is the term given to describe a second generation of the World Wide Web that is focused on the ability for people to collaborate and share information online. Web 2.0 refers to the transition from static HTML Web pages to a more dynamic Web that is more organized and is based on serving Web applications to users. Other improved functionality of Web 2.0 includes open communication with an emphasis on Web;based communities of users, and more open sharing of information. Over time, Web 2.0 has been used more as a marketing term than a computer;science;based term. Blogs, wikis, and Web services are all seen as components of Web 2.0. It was previously used as a synonym for Semantic Web, but while the two are similar, they do not share precisely the same meaning. Some examples of features considered part of Web 2.0 are listed below: A 0 ; also known as Web logs, these allow users to post thoughts and updates about their life on the Web. + , ; sites like Wikipedia and others enable users from around the world to add and update online content. " , 0 ; sites like Facebook and MySpace allow users to build and customize their own profile sand communicate with friends. * A' ' , Indian Institute of Science Education and Research IISERTrivandrum Kerala, + ; a broad range of new applications make it possible for users to run programs directly in a Web browser. Web 2.0 technologies provide a level user interaction that was not available before. Websites have become much more dynamic and interconnected, producing "online communities" and making it even easier to share information on the Web. Because most Web 2.0 features are offered as free services, sites like Wikipedia and Facebook have grown at amazingly fast rates. As the sites continue to grow, more features are added, building off the technologies in place. So, while Web 2.0 may be a static label given to the new era of the Web, the actual technology continues to evolve and change. 5 + .: As such, Web 2.0 draws together the capabilities of client; and server;side software, content syndication and the use of network protocols. Standards;oriented web browsers may use plug;ins and software extensions to handle the content and the user interactions. Web 2.0 sites provide users with information storage, creation, and dissemination capabilities that were not possible in the environment now known as "Web 1.0".Web 2.0 can be described in 3 parts, which are as follows: ' (RIA) — defines the experience brought from desktop to browser whether it is from a graphical point of view or usability point of view. Some buzzwords related to RIA are Ajax and Flash. + C +3 — is a key piece in Web 2.0, which defines how Web 2.0 applications expose their functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate the functionality providing a set of much richer applications (Examples are: Feeds, RSS, Web Services, Mash;ups) + — defines how Web 2.0 tends to interact much more with the end user and make the end;user an integral part. $ + .: The Web we know now, which loads into a browser window in essentially static screenfuls, is only an embryo of the Web to come. The first glimmerings of Web 2.0 are beginning to appear, and we are just starting to see how that embryo might develop. The Web will be understood not as screenfuls of text and graphics but as a transport mechanism, the ether through which interactivity happens. It will appear on your computer screen, on your TV set, your car dashboard, your cell phone, hand; held game machines, maybe even your microwave oven.In 2003, the term began its rise in popularity when O'Reilly Media and MediaLive hosted the first Web 2.0 conference. In their opening remarks, John Battelle and Tim O'Reilly outlined their definition of the "Web as Platform", where software applications are built upon the Web as opposed to upon the desktop. The unique aspect of this migration, they argued, is that "customers are building your business for you".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0 ; cite_note;10 They argued that the activities of users generating content (in the form of ideas, text, videos, or pictures) could be "harnessed" to create value. O'Reilly and Battelle contrasted Web 2.0 with what they called "Web 1.0". They associated Web 1.0 with the business models of Netscape and the Encyclopedia Britannica Online. For example, A. Netscape framed "the web as platform" in terms of the old software paradigm: their flagship product was the web browser, a desktop application, and their strategy was to use their dominance in the browser market to establish a market for high;priced server products. Control over standards for displaying content and applications in the browser would, in theory, give Netscape the kind of market power enjoyed by Microsoft in the PC market. Much like the "horseless carriage" framed the automobile as an extension of the familiar, Netscape promoted a "webtop" to replace the desktop, and planned to populate that webtop with information updates and applets pushed to the webtop by information providers who would purchase Netscape servers. + .: Acc to Webopedia, Web 2.0 is the term given to describe a second generation of the World Wide Web that is focused on the ability for people to collaborate and share information online. Web 2.0 basically refers to the transition from static HTML Web pages to a more dynamic Web that is more organized and is based on serving Web applications to users. Other improved functionality of Web 2.0 includes open communication with an emphasis on Web;based communities of users, and more open sharing of information. Over time Web 2.0 has been used more as a marketing term than a computer;science;based term. Blogs, wikis, and Web services are all seen as components of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 was previously used as a synonym for Semantic Web, but while the two are similar, they do not share precisely the same meaning. 5 + .: Web 2.0 is one of the most promising technological advances that will occur on the Internet, there is a lot of confusion that surrounds it. While you may think this confusion is limited to laypersons. Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information. By increasing what was already possible in "Web 1.0", they provide the user with more user;interface, software and storage facilities, all through their browser. This has been called "Network as platform" computing. Major features of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, user contributed sites, self;publishing platforms, tagging, and social bookmarking. Users can provide the data that is on a Web 2.0 site and exercise some control over that data. These sites may have an "Architecture of participation" that encourages users to add value to the application as they use it. Some scholars have made the case that cloud computing is a form of Web 2.0 because cloud computing is simply an implication of computing on the Internet. The Web 2.0 offers all users the same freedom to contribute. While this opens the possibility for serious debate and collaboration, it also opens the possibility for "spamming" and "trolling" by less mature users. The impossibility of excluding group members who don’t contribute to the provision of goods from sharing profits gives rise to the possibility that serious members will prefer to withhold their contribution of effort and free ride on the contribution of others. This requires what is sometimes called radical trust by the management of the website. According to Best, the characteristics of Web 2.0 are: rich user experience, user participation, dynamic content, metadata, web standards and scalability. Further characteristics, such as openness, freedom and collective intelligence way of user participation, can also be viewed as essential attributes of Web 2.0.Though there is a controversy still going on over the definition of Web 2.0, yet it has some basic common characteristics. These include: 1. Web 2.0 use network as a platform as it deliver or receive applications thoroughly via a browser. 2. Users gets, manipulates and controlled the data on the site. 3. Participatory architecture in which user can add or edit value to the application according to their requirement. 4. A rich, interactive, user;friendly interface based on Ajax or similar frameworks. 5. Some social;networking aspects. 6. Enhanced graphical interfaces such as gradients and rounded corners (absent in the so;called Web 1.0 era). + 1. .: ( Cascading style sheet to allow users to control website content presentation and separation. 2. XHTML & HTML markups validated semantically. 3. Syndication, aggregation & notification of data in RSS feeds. 4. Web log publishing tools, wikis or forums, instant messengers etc. 5. Websites with Collaborative tagging, social classification, social indexing and social tagging can be developed. 6. XML, JavaScript based APIs can be used for website development. 7. Completely dynamic and interactive website development using Open source technologies and rich internet applications. 7 + . : Based on new ideas began to emerge around 2004 in Web ; related technologies and Web site services , a new term “web 2.0″ is coined by Tim O’Reilly. The following 7 are the key features of web 2.0 1. Folksonomy : Free Classification of Information 2. Rich User Experience 3. User as a Contributor 4. Long Tail 5. User Participation 6. Basic Trust 7. Dispersion 7 , Traditional Web like Yahoo Directory and DMOZ uses a pre; defined classification of Information like category & sub category. On the other hand Web 2.0 without sticking to the existing framework of classification , allows user create free classification/ arrangement of information. This is also known as Social tagging. For example , the photo sharing site Flicker and Social Bookmarking of del.icio.us ' D <J : Traditional web are built with HTML and CSS、CGI and had been offered as a static page . On the other hand Web 2.0 uses Ajax （Asynchronous JavaScript + XML) presenting dynamic , rich user experience to users .For example, Google Provided Google Maps and Google Suggest D 5 : In tradition web, the information is often provided by the site owner and the user is always the receiver. The information model was One Way. On the other hand, Web 2.0 user also contributes to the content by means of Evaluation, Review & Commenting. The typical example is the Amazon.com – customer review section & Google’s Page Rank mechanism 0 ? The traditional web was like a retail business the product is sold directly to user and the revenue generated. But in web 2.0 the niche product is not sold directly but offered as a service on demand basis and income is generated as monthly fee and pay per consumption. The typical example is sales force CRM services and Google Apps D ) In traditional web the contents are solely provider by the web site owner /company, but in web 2.0 the users participate in content sourcing. This is also known as Crowd sourcing. The typical examples are Wikipedia & You Tube. A ? In traditional web, the contents are protected under Intellectual Property Rights but on the other hand, in web 2.0 the contents are made available to share, reuse, redistribute and edit. The typical examples Wikipedia & Creative Common In traditional web, the contents were delivered as direct site to home. But in web 2.0, the content delivery uses multiple channel include file sharing & permalinks. $ "+ .:5 0 I personally feel that it is an understatement to say that Web 2.0 will change the face of the Internet. It is an emerging technology that has a number of important implications, and those who are prepared for such implications will prosper. Many have said that Web 2.0 will give users the same experiences that they first had when they used the Internet for the first time. However, many experts feel that Web 2.0 will be the result of small advances and tweaks that will gradually transform the net. While it took a few years for email to be adopted by the public, many feel that Web 2.0 will allow things to move much faster. However, the revolution that will become Web 2.0 is much more quiet than previous evolutions. To the casual Internet user, the changes are not very obvious. They log on, go to their favorite websites, or download games or movies. However, there are a large number of technical advances that are being made each day, and it will take some time for these changes to become visible. Many of the organizations responsible for these are a few small companies, as well as large software companies. In a nutshell, Web 2.0 will be the result of a major software upgrade that will occur on the Internet. For most of history, the Internet has been nothing more than a group of computers that were networked together via interlocking pages. The information would flow freely, and it would go from once source to another. One of the reasons why Web 1.0 was so powerful was because of its simplicity. Unlike many technological marvels, it was not inherently complex. A website was simply a group of pages that had text and images, and if you found a website that was similar in topic to your own, you could link to them, and they could link back. People who visit their website could come to your website, and people who came to your site could go to theirs. While this interaction was very simple, it was revolutionary, and laid the foundation for what we have today. Now that I've given you an illustration of Web 1.0, let me give you a demonstration of web 2.0. Let’s say you have a website in Web 2.0 that is related to a specific dog breed. You could subscribe to a dog care service that is related to Google News, and you could put in a request for the service to scan numerous new outlets across the web, and notify you of any information that is related to a specific dog breed. When you get up in the morning, you could find a link to a book that is written about the dog breed of your interest. You could then click on the link to go to the first article, and you could then use a tool such as Blogger to write a review of the books with links to Amazon.com, a place where the book could be purchased. Lets say a few hours after you've posted the review on your blog, the blog is scanned by Technorati. As the service scans your site, it will notice the link you made to Amazon.com. For those not familiar with Technorati, it is similar to Google, except it deals specifically with blogs. It will scan blogs on a frequent basis to pull up new information. Technorati also has a feature that allows it to list popular books. ( 0 ( 0 + .: While Web 2.0 has become a popular term in these days, few people have taken the time to weigh the pros and cons of these evolutionary change. While the advantages are heavily touted by those who are proponents of Web 2.0, there are also those who feel that this technology will do more harm than good. With Web 2.0, information can be pulled from a number of different places, and it can be personalized to meet the needs of a single user. Applications can be built on the existing applications that comprise the Web 2.0 interface. It could be said that Web 2.0 will allow the mass population to communicate with each other and spread ideas rather than receiving their information from a single authority. Based on the descriptions above, it should be easy to see the advantages of this system. Information will flow freely, and people can express their ideas without fear of repression. Web 2.0 would make the Internet a true democratic system, a digital democracy. The population as a whole would become more informed. Instead of getting information from once source that could have an agenda, they can receive their information from multiple sources, and this will allow them to make better decisions about the world around them. A good example of this is the ability to read newspapers from various countries other than the one you reside in. You can view events from more than one perspective, and this allows you to be a more well informed person. Another powerful advantage of Web 2.0 is communication. It has become obvious that the Internet is one of the greatest communication mediums in the world. In my personal opinion, the Internet surpasses even the telephone and printing press. The reason I say this is because the masses can communicate with each other without the oversight of governments or corporations. However, there are a number of disadvantages to Web 2.0 as well. Unfortunately, this information is rarely discussed in the media. Too many people push the benefits of Web 2.0 without taking the time to educate people about the problems. One of the key problems with Web 2.0 is dependence. I'm a good example of what happens when you become heavily dependent on the Internet. If your connection should go down, how will you access the information that you come to depend on? Because many web services will be offered for free, they won't be secure, and they could easily be targeted by hackers. While I'm a firm believer in the Internet, I don't accept the idea of a "paperless" office. Many people feel that Web 2.0 can facilitate this, but I feel it is a dangerous trend. No matter how advanced the Internet becomes, it is very important for some things to be kept in a hard copy form. If your hard drive crashes, and you didn't back up your information, you could lose months for even years of work. This is something that few of us can afford. Sharing is also an issue that will become controversial. What happens when users begin sharing information that is copyrighted? How will people be paid for the work they do? If videos, music, movies, and other information can be shared freely, how can a profit be generated? These are challenges that people will have to face once Web 2.0 is introduced. ' 1. 2. 3. 6 9 6. 7. 8. 9. Anderson, Paul. (2007).What is Web 2.0: Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC;Technology & Standards Watch, 7;9, 28;29, 46;47, 52. BOUTIN, P. (2006). Web 2.0: the new Internet ‘boom’ doesn't live up to its name. Slate (online). March 29th 2006. Cormode, Graham and Krishnamurthy, Balachander. (2008). Key Differences between Web1.0 and Web2.0, 4, 14;15. Maness, Jack M. (2009).Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications for Libraries. O’REILLY, T. 2006. People Inside & Web 2.0: An interview with Tim O’Reilly. Open Business website, April 25th 2006. O'Reilly, Tim. (2007). What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Schroth, Christoph and Janner, Till. (2007). Web 2.0 and SOA: Converging Concepts Enabling the Internet of Services. Smith, Andrew Hudson., Crooks, Andrew., Gibin, Maurizio., Milton, Richard and Batty, Michael. (2009). NeoGeography and Web 2.0: concepts, tools and applications, STANLEY, T. 2006. Web 2.0: Supporting Library Users QA Focus. UKOLN.