Web 2.0

1.1 THE SOCIAL READ/WRITE WEB AN INTRODUCTION

We live in age of information where flow of information is constant and internet plays an important role in this flow of information sharing and exchange. The world is on figure tips due to the advancement in technologies. All this become possible due to World Wide Web which cause to made globe as community. Technology and information become obsolete so quickly. Now we are in era of web 2.0 According to Tim Orielly

"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 Web1.0 to deliver rich user experiences" (O'Reilly 2005).

According to Alan smith "2.0" does not show any specific increment in web version it's only the way the use of web change (). Murugesan define Web 2.0 as second phase in the Web's evolution, which attract IT professionals, businesses, and Web users. Further more he writes that Web 2.0 is wisdom Web, people-centric Web, participative Web, and read/write Web (Murugesan 2007).

Web 2.0 is 'people Power' web shows the blogging success, user review, photo sharing (Anderson ) and observe called it gift culture due to users contribution as participation (Mason, Rennie 2007). In learning and teaching process effective evolution of technology, importance of active participation, critical thinking, social presence, collaboration and two way communications are also important (Beldarrain 2006).

Web2.0 provides more effective interaction and collaboration, investigation for the ways of using blogs effectively, wikis, podcasts and social network which also used in education. The main characteristic of these tools called Web 2.0, which shows active participation from user in the content of creation process (Usluel, Mazman 2009).

Web 2.0 social networking applications, allows users not only to find out information about others, but also to connect with others through linking to their profiles, joining and creating group, and ability to send public and private messages to their friends for example Face book, MySpace, and sharing with them their happy moments as on Picasa and flicker. It has changed the static information to more active, dynamic and responsive participation, creation and sharing of contents.

On the biases of Orielly definition Markus Angermeier created a mind map for web 2.0 which explain the key concepts. These important concepts of Web 2.0 include Usability, Standardization, Design, Remixability, Economy, participation and convergence.

Usability is one of the key factors of web 2.0. According to Lewis

"Web 2.0 applications tend to look more like desktop applications than Web pages: they have simple interfaces with plain colours and no busy patterns, logos, or animation. They provide a richness of Interaction previously found only in desktop applications" (Lewis 2006).

He further write about the dynamic content of web 2.0 and information gathering and assembling of information on a single page.

The source of information is blogs which are like online diaries, resource sharing which allow users to share their favourite web links and other resource like tags (Lewis 2006). Example systems include del.icio.us and bibsonomy.org. Web 2.0 fulfils the standardization requirements of (W3C) for applications development and content generation. Design provide rich look and feel with practical user-interface, eye catching appearance and ease of use. Remixability is the facility that Web 2.0 offers where an application can be remixed with different set of other minor applications together to form a new and more interactive application.

The introduction of Web 2.0 technologies such as AJAX breaks this fixed page based model in several ways. Traditional web sites depend on a page update model where each interaction results in an entire page refresh Web 2.0 applications allow part page updates (Pilgrim, 2008). For example, Google Maps do not require an entire page to be refreshed when the user selects a preferred view.

Google system gets the data that lies outside of the edge of the map in frame with out refreshing whole page and allow user to grab the map and drag it without any interruption (Zucker 2007). Gmail also uses AJAX technology in similar fashion to update the little portion of page when new email arrives (Pilgrim 2008).

1.2 WEB 1.0 VS WEB 2.0

According to Musser and O'Reilly (2006)

"Web 2.0 is a set of economic, social, and technology trends that collectively form the basis for the next generation of the Internet-a more mature, distinctive medium characterised by user participation, openness, and network effects"(Musser, O'Reilly 2008).

The main difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 is creation and presentation of content. In Web 1.0 the majority of users acting as consumers of content, while in Web 2.0 user can actively participate in content creation and sharing and there are various technologies available to create the content to its maximum potential. The free nature of Web 2.0 allow users to create exchange and share contents of any kind (text, audio, video) and tag, comment, and link "Pages " within group or outside the group. A popular improvement in Web 2.0 is "mashups," which combine or make content in fresh forms (Cormode, Krishnamurthy 2008). For example, street addresses are linked with a map Web site to visualize the locations. This type of site linkage provides facility to create additional link between records of any database with other database.

In web 1.0 people implicitly put links of interesting resources to their personal home pages. HTML form tags spread across entire web with no facility of tag base browsing, search engines were using this text as source of web page to improve the quality of search, it limits the tagging in web 1.0 and which restrict collaborative interaction and collective intelligence of community (BRIN, PAGE 1998).

While web 2.0 every one can participate in tagging as it become very easy task and become the key characteristic of portals. "Due to the large scale of the tagging community, portals like del.icio.us have accumulated decent annotations in the form of tags for numerous resources. These tags are used for search and navigation and Google AdSenseform easy-to-read summaries for the described resources" (Kinsella et al. 2008).

Tim O'Reilly in his Article "What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software", 2005 describe the difference of web1.0 and web2.0 as follows:

(Table 1.0 What is Web 2.0: O'Reilly, 2005)

According to Gibson dynamic updates is one of the important characteristic of web2.0 and this is adopted through AJAX technology (Gibson 2007). Web2.0 websites respond user request such as email checking or instant chatting. Web2.0 applications also provide automatic updates such as stock quotes, sports scores and other information (Gibson 2007). Mostly news sites like BBC, Sky News...etc. continuously updating providing instant information.

Web2.0 encourages the active participation from the users to access content and interaction with each other on the Web (Pilgrim 2008). The content of Web 1.0 was 'read-only' and static. Whereas the transformation of web to changed the read-only web to 'read-write' web enabled user active and collaborative participation.

The above graph shows that how persistent growth in internet usage according to the facts provided by Internet World Stats with in a decade its usage rise from 361 million to 1650 million users world wide.

At the early stages content of web were static in their nature and they are publish for reading purpose there were no interaction between users and user generated content are at ignorable scale. As the number of users raise it change the way of content presentation and publication on internet and users start active participation and involvement in the content and collective intelligence increased through this social read/write web. The change brought by Web 2.0 in content publishing and consumption evidently shows the divergence between static web (web1.0) and dynamic web (web2.0). Web 2.0 provides pages with dynamic content which not only can be read by browsers or readers but with the capability of writing, collaborating and sharing knowledge at the same time.

1.3 WEB 2.0 ACTIVITIES AND SERVICES

There are a number of Web 2.0 services and applications available which provide the foundation of Read/Write web. These tools allow users to create, edit and modify the content of information with collaboration. Web 2.0-based communities occupy virtual spaces that are open, self-organizing, adaptive, agile, readily accessible, and easy to use (Sabin, Leone 2009). A Web 2.0 platform has shared design of services to support a collaborative and distributed environment in which users can connect, share, comment and create new content or software tools (Sabin, Leone 2009).

Web 2.0 framework offers evolutionary services of the Internet history. To be active on internet firms have no choice but to find out an appropriate role using web2.0. Most major firms, including BMW, IBM, Google, and many others, are positioning them-selves to find their strategic place, appropriate place and fit within these developments (Wigand, Benjamin & Birkland 2008).

In today's web we find different type of content. According to Paul Anderson (2007)

"These include blogs, wikis, multimedia sharing services, content syndication, podcasting and content tagging services. Many of these applications of Web technology are relatively mature, having been in use for a number of years, although new features and capabilities are being added on a regular basis It is worth noting that many of these newer technologies are concatenations, i.e. they make use of existing services"(Anderson ).

In this section I will discusses about some of the important activities Web 2.0 activities, these are Blogging, Folksonomy and Social Bookmarking, Multimedia Sharing, Social Networking, Podcasting.

1.3.1 BLOGGING

The term web-log, or blog, was coined by Jorn Barger in 1997 and refers to a simple webpage consisting of brief paragraphs of opinion, information, personal diary entries, or links, called posts, arranged chronologically with the most recent first, in the style of an online journal (Doctorow et al., 2002).

Blogs are also called online diaries which enable users, without requirement of any technical skill, to create, publish and organize their own web pages that contain dated content, entries, comments, discussion etc. in sequential order (Alexander, 2006; Castenade, 2007).

People can publish information which they collect from various resources and establish relation between them in blogs. Additionally RSS and the possibility to post comments make blogs also a collaborative and social-interactive software application (Petter et al., 2005).

San Murugesan defines blogs a two- way web-base communication tool. Simply it is a website which is used to share thoughts and ideas to leave suggestions and comments. An entry in blog might contain text, image, or link to other blogs and web pages, and possibly the other media related to the topic. Blogs have ability to generate machine readable RSS and Atom feeds it means they could be use to distribute machine readable summaries of contents and provide the facility of searching similar information from different sources (Cayzer, 2004), (Anderson, 2007).

Huge number of internet users involved in blogging and they are operating in their own environment. As technology has become more sophisticated, bloggers have begun to incorporate multimedia into their blogs and there are now photo-blogs, video blogs (vlogs), and, increasingly, bloggers can upload material directly from their mobile phones (Anderson, 2007).There are different types and categories of blogs. Such as Arts, Business, Computers and Technology, Education, Entertainment, Food, History, Law, Libraries, Music, Personal, Political, Regional, Sports and finally Web.

Blogging software allows three levels of privacy password-protected most private blog; user's blog service listed blog most public blog and will be easily found by search engines. An unlisted blog neither fully private nor fully public. Unlisted blog cannot be found without knowing the URL. It could be public only if it contain a link and someone eventually click that link this way these blogs picked by search engines. Since most blogs contain links that anyone might click on, unlisted blogs are not secure, although they may remain relatively invisible if they link to sites that few people access and if the links are not activated (Nardi et al., 2004).

Blogging is well known activity which used for online debate and discussions, shared editing, personal communication and networking. In terms of groups, it allows various authors or writers to communicate with others to present their views, opinions and to write for teams, groups and group work.

1.3.2 FOLKSONOMY/TAGGING AND SOCIAL BOOKMARKING

A tag is a keyword that is added to a digital object (e.g. a website, picture or video clip) to describe it, but not as part of a formal classification system. One of the first large-scale applications of tagging was seen with the introduction of Joshua Schacter's del.icio.us website, which launched the 'social bookmarking' phenomenon (Anderson, 2007).

In web 2.0 Folksonomy as a social web service provide facility to users to save and organise online their bookmarks with "social annotations" or "tags". These are high quality descriptors of web pages' topics and good indicators of web users' interests (Xu, et al., 2004).

Social book marking systems share number of common features (Millen et al., 2005), they also provide the facility of tagging these bookmarks and unlike traditional browser-base bookmarks they can be belong more that one category. Tagging is far more beyond then web site bookmarking. Services like Flicker (photos), YouTube (video) and Odeo (podcasts) allow a variety of digital artefacts to be socially tagged (Anderson, 2007). Users contribute not only in posts and articles but also in from of tags which form the metadata of the content which provide valuable information in content search. It also brings benefits of semantic web to current websites which create collaborative tagging or Folksonomy. Del.icio.us is good example of widely accepted and collaboratively created tags, contend creation and blogging (Subramanya & Liu, 2008).

Social bookmarking systems provide a clear incentive for users to participate (Farrell et al., 2007). The idea of tagging has been expanded to include what are called tag clouds: groups of tags (tag sets) from a number of different users of a tagging service, which collates information about the frequency with which particular tags are used (Anderson, 2007).

1.3.3 MULTIMEDIA SHARING

According to Paul Anderson (2007) multimedia sharing is one of the biggest growth areas amongst services. Well known examples are YouTube which provide video storage and sharing Flicker for photographs and Odeo for Podcasts. These services provide writable facility which at the same time makes users as a consumers and initiate active participation and production of web contents. There are million of people participating in sharing and exchange of these types of media by producing their own podcasts, videos and photos. This development was made possible thorough widespread adoption of high quality and low cost media technology. Such as mobile devices which provide high quality video capturing and photography facility, camcorders with huge storage capability.

Web 2.0 change the way the user was interacting with previous form of web which was static in nature. Now users of all ages are playing an active role in building web contents and this is possible because of low barrier to entry most of then are just to sign up and post content. as the popularity of website is growing and availability of broadband is increasing users involvement is also growing. nowadays internet become part of life and almost every user take part in content building in different form like comments, opinions, tags, or in visual form like photos and videos. for video sharing most common site is YouTube which provide facilities of uploading videos in different formats like WMV, MPEG and AVI and convert them in Flash Video before posting and it enable users to watch videos without downloading any extra browser plug-in (Gill, el at., 2007).

1.3.4 SOCIAL NETWORKING

Social networking is one of the services provided by web2.0 which most people using. During last 10 years hundreds of millions of internet users all over the world have visited thousands of social networking and social media sites and took advantage of free services in order to stay connected with their online and offline friends, share user-created contents, such as photos, videos, bookmarks, blogs, etc (Kim, el at., 2009).

There are websites which provide facilities to users to create and host these sites. MySpace and Face book each are calming over 250 million users (Stone, 2009). YouTube a site for video sharing is the third most visited site among all websites, right behind yahoo and Google. Barack Obama's election campaign extensively uses the internet and social networking sites to get his message out (Talbot, 2008; Lagourney, 2008). Even a course on ''Facebook'' is offered in Stanford University, in which students are to build Facebook applications and find ways to attract users [Baldwin, 2007].

Twitter, the social networking site that features140-character messages, called micro blogs, are so popular in the US that it has spawned such words as twitter, tweed, and twitterati [Pogue, 2009]. Some one even created an interactive book, for digital reading devices, that includes text, online video, and Twitter update stream [Stone, 2009). Kind-hearted people now use Facebook and Twitter to locate the owners of lost items they find, such as wallets, mobile phones, digital cameras, etc. Stone, 2009).

There are many social networking sites like MySpace, Face Book, Friendster and LinkedIn gaining popularity (Reston, 2007) and continue to attract large number of people around the globe (Bausch & Han, 2006). The growing popularity of social networking sites influenced academic research, and scholars they have started to investigate the communication and interaction between people in these sites (Arjan el at., 2008)

1.3.5 PODCASTING

Digital media file mostly in mp3 formats distributed on internet for play back on mp3 players, iPods and personal computers is known as podcasting. According to New Media 2006 annual Horizon Report social computing and personal broadcasting technologies are emerging e- learning technologies leaving large impact on teaching, learning or creative expression with in higher education (Long, 2006).

"Podcasting allows anyone with a microphone and an Internet connection to create audio files that others can download. Vodcasting (video on demand broadcasting) also requires some type of video camera. To create a pod/VOD cast you need to create the content and publish it to a website. To access the pod/vodcast you [can] subscribe to the content using an "RSS news reader" (also known as an aggregator or podcatcher which automatically pulls down podcasts as they are published), download the content into content management software on your computer, and then download the file to your MP3 player by synchronizing it with your computer." (Herkenhoff, 2006)

"The use of podcasting technology in museums and similar tourist attractions is proving interesting. Podcasts are being used as electronic guides for visitors. People can walk around the attraction listening to the recording. This gives people the convenience of a guided tour but with the flexibility of being able to start and stop the recording as they wish. It also means tours can be provided to visitors in a wide variety of foreign languages. A further interesting use is in stories, such as the BBC's book at bedtime.

These podcasts appeal to a number of individuals for a diversity of reasons, and there is particular interest from people with sight difficulties. Visually impaired individuals are now able to enjoy some of the biggest selling novels through this format." (Matthews, 2006)Pat R. Ormand describe the benefits of podcast as "Podcasts can provide additional information for talented students, and support for those with specific learning needs, different learning styles, cultural differences, and language barriers. Even campus news broadcasts can be podcast" (Ormand, 2008).

Podcasts can be used as complementary tool for students but they are not the replacement for classroom experience where students get instance feedback and clarification regarding to any question arise related to subject matter.

1.3.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

Internet is the main source of information and amount of information is increasing rabidly and provide user more and more options but at the same time it is very difficult to extract information which is "right" and "interesting" form this ever biggest pool (Aghabozorgi, Wah 2009). To handle with these problems recommender systems have been introduced (Resnick & Varian, 1997 ; (Chung, Sundaram & Srinivasan 2007) and defined as the personalized information technology which is used to predict a user evaluation of a particular item(Taghipour, Kardan & Ghidary 2007) there are different approaches to create recommender system but most common are "Collaborative-filtering" and "content-based" (Shani, Chickering & Meek 2008).

There are thousands of pages where users publicly describe their preferences on different things (Shani, Chickering & Meek 2008) such as movies, music players and CDs etc. Recommendation system is another facility of web 2.0 which show the behaviour and preferences of buyers and is helpful for others to select products quickly (Fleder, Hosanagar 2007) buyers can even view the further description and relevancy between the products.

1.4 TECHNOLOGY AND STANDARDS

At the early stages World Wide Web was static in it content and there is no active user interaction(Wang, Zahadat 2009). The stage of web application we are now is a different era of web and these applications are fundamentally different from tradiotional web(Wang, Zahadat 2009). The idea behind today's web is usability(Wang, Zahadat 2009). Web 2.0 application provide the facility of look and feel like desktop applications and provide a rich user interface and interaction capabilities(Wang, Zahadat 2009). Web 2.0 offers new means of accessing information and sharing knowledge and ideas among others(Zucker 2007, Wang, Zahadat 2009, Wong, Hong 2008) and this all become possible due to "AJAX" technology.

1.4.1 AJAX

As user expectations on the web start increasing. There was an increase need to provide applications with richness of client server application without sacrificing the manageability of web application. A combination of Dynamic HTML, browser side scripting and use of XML-HTTP protocol has become popular with the name of AJAX (Crane, D. Pascarello, E. James, D. 2005) which provide more interactive web interface (N., Banerjee & Kumar 2009).

AJAX applications change the manner in which pagers are rendered in web browser. Applications are no longer just collection of HTML page that get loaded on request. AJAX application may consist on a single page even it does not need request to get load it modify its own presentation dynamically(N., Banerjee & Kumar 2009). GUI elements such as menus and button could be implemented using AJAX frameworks(Kletsch, Volk 2008).One of the primary goals of Ajax implementation on Web applications is to improve the user's experience of response time(Dahlan, Nishimura 2008).

Petreley describe the benefits of AJAX as follows:

"Ajax really revolves around a very simple principle. It lets you manipulate the contents of a Web page without having to reload the page. Here are the key steps involved that exploit the power of Ajax:

* Capture an event (such as when a user changes an edit field or presses a button).

* The event triggers JavaScript code, which sends a query to the Web server.

* The JavaScript code retrieves results from the server.

* The JavaScript code uses the results to change the contents of the Web page"(Petreley ).

1.4.2 WEB 2.0 MASHUPS

In past few years there is rapid growth in integrated web applications, known as mashups. Mashup integrates data, computation and UI elements provided by several components into a single tool (Greenshpan, Milo & Polyzotis ). These mashups are combination of different data sources and APIs into an integrated end user experience (Zang, Rosson & Nasser 2008). Constructing mashups typically involve programming, although there are now a number of tools available that simplify even eliminate programming for a number of mashup tasks and these tools often design to address different mashup patterns (Wong, Hong 2008).

According to Greenshpan el at.

"A mashup consists of several smaller components, namely mashlets, implementing specific functionalities. For instance, a mashlet may model a data source, e.g., a news RSS feed, or it may implement some visual functionality, e.g., draw a map, or it may realize a specific operator, e.g., extract location information from an RSS feed input. It may also contain logic that "glues" together other mashlets, in which case we refer to it as a glue pattern (GP for short). As an example, a GP may combine the aforementioned three mashlets in order to present a map with the locations of recent news feeds" (Greenshpan, Milo & Polyzotis ).

1.5 WEB 2.0 AND LEARNING

Web 2.0 technologies in education especially informal learning have shown remarkable potential (Safran, Garcia-Barrios & Ebner 2009). Learning through blogs and wikis is playing important role. Millions of blogs and blog posts available to solve any sort of problem at tip of figure. Podcasting is also playing an important role in education Stanford University, collaboration with Apple provide using iTunes providing online courses in audio and video format.

Wolfram Alpha a computational knowledge engine is another sophisticated example of educational website which

"contains 10+ trillion pieces of data, 50,000+ types of algorithms and models, and linguistic capabilities for 1000+ domains. Built with Mathematica-which is itself the result of more than 20 years of development at Wolfram Research-Wolfram|Alpha's core code base now exceeds 5 million lines of symbolic Mathematica code. Running on supercomputer-class compute clusters, Wolfram Alpha makes extensive use of the latest generation of web and parallel computing technologies, including webMathematica and gridMathematica" (Wolfram Alpha).

The remarkable intregation and mobility of technology (Saljo 2010) left an impact on us that how we are thinking about schooling and learning. People all around us getting aid of these technologies, playing complex games, simulate the challenging tasks, create social relations through social networks, enhance their professional lives through online learning on their own terms(Collins, Halverson 2010, Facer, Sandford 2010).

CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter, concepts related to Web 2.0 explained and we found that what enhancements are already being done. What services Web 2.0 is providing and in what areas they are being used. We also discussed that what applications are available and how useful they are in building user interactive and dynamic design of websites. Finally we discussed the impact of web 2.0 in education. Next chapter will explain about collaborative learning.

Refrences

Wolfram Alpha (Website. Available: http://www.wolframalpha.com/ [2010, 2/14/2010].

Adebanjo, D. & Michaelides, R. "Analysis of Web 2.0 enabled e-clusters: A case study", Technovation, vol. In Press, Corrected Proof.

Aghabozorgi, S.R. & Wah, T.Y. 2009, , pp. 812-818.

Anderson, P. "What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education", [Online], vol. 2010, no. 2/13/2010. Available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf. [2/13/2010].

Arjan, R., Pfeil, U. & Zaphiris, P. 2008, "Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '08; Age differences in online social networking ", , pp. 2739.

Baldwin, C. 2007, , Forget the classics, try a Facebook college course | Reuters. Available: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2741994920070928 [2010, 2/13/2010] .

Beldarrain, Y. 2006, "Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration", Distance Education, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 139-153.

Borodin, Y., Bigham, J.P., Raman, R. & Ramakrishnan, I.V. 2008, "Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility - Assets '08; What's new? ", , pp. 145.

BRIN, S. & PAGE, L. 1998, "The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search engine", Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, vol. 30, no. 1-7, pp. 107-117.

Capuano, N., Pierri, A., Colace, F., Gaeta, M. & Mangione, G.R. 2009, "Proceedings of the first ACM international workshop on Multimedia technologies for distance learning - MTDL '09; A mash-up authoring tool for e-learning based on pedagogical templates ", , pp. 87.

Cayzer, S. 2004, "Semantic blogging and decentralized knowledge management ", Communications of the ACM, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 47.

Chung, R., Sundaram, D. & Srinivasan, A. 2007, "Integrated personal recommender systems", Proceedings of the ninth international conference on Electronic commerceACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 65.

Collins, A. & Halverson, R. 2010, "The second educational revolution: rethinking education in the age of technology ", Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 18-27.

Cormode, G. & Krishnamurthy, B. 2008, "Key Differences between Web1.0 and Web2.0", First Monday, vol. 13, no. 6.

Crane, D. Pascarello, E. James, D. 2005, Ajax in Action, Manning Publications Co.

Dahlan, A.A. & Nishimura, T. 2008, "Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications & Services - iiWAS '08; Implementation of asynchronous predictive fetch to improve the performance of Ajax-enabled web applications ", , pp. 345.

Di Lorenzo, G., Hacid, H., Paik, H. & Benatallah, B. 2009, "Data integration in mashups ", ACM SIGMOD Record, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 59.

Farrell, S., Lau, T., Nusser, S., Wilcox, E. & Muller, M. 2007, "Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology - UIST '07; Socially augmenting employee profiles with people-tagging ", , pp. 91.

Ferretti, S., Mirri, S., Muratori, L.A., Roccetti, M. & Salomoni, P. 2008, "Proceedings of the 2008 international cross-disciplinary workshop on Web accessibility (W4A) - W4A '08; E-learning 2.0 ", , pp. 116.

Fleder, D.M. & Hosanagar, K. 2007, "Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Electronic commerce - EC '07; Recommender systems and their impact on sales diversity ", , pp. 192.

Gibson, B. 2007, "Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A) - W4A '07; Enabling an accessible web 2.0", , pp. 1.

Gill, P., Arlitt, M., Li, Z. & Mahanti, A. 2007, "Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement - IMC '07; Youtube traffic characterization ", , pp. 15.

Gliet, J., Krüger, A., Klemm, O. & Schöning, J. 2008, "Image geo-mashups: the example of an augmented reality weather camera.", Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual interfacesACM, New York, NY, pp. 287.

Greenshpan, O., Milo, T. & Polyzotis, N. "Autocompletion for mashups", Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment.VLDB Endowment, , pp. 538.

Hartley, R. 2010, "The evolution and redefining of â??CALâ??: a reflection on the interplay of theory and practice ", Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 4 <last_page> 17.

Herkenhoff, L. 2006, "A trilogy of flexibility in executive managements programs:

synchronous classrooms, podcasts and vodcasts,", [Online], , pp.. Available from: http://download.101com.com/CAM/conf/2006/WPS4.pdf.[ 01/10/2010]

Herlocker, J.L., Konstan, J.A., Terveen, L.G. & Riedl, J.T. 2004, "Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems ", ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 5-53.

Kim, W., Jeong, O. & Lee, S. 2010, "On social Web sites", Information Systems, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 215-236.

Kinsella, S., Budura, A., Skobeltsyn, G., Michel, S., Breslin, J.G. & Aberer, K. 2008, "Proceeding of the 10th ACM workshop on Web information and data management - WIDM '08; From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and back - ", , pp. 79.

Kletsch, C. & Volk, D. 2008, "Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Future Play Research, Play, Share - Future Play '08; Towards an AJAX-based game engine ", , pp. 270.

Lagourney, A. 2008, "The' 08 campaign: sea change for politics as we know it", .

Lewis, D. 2006, "What is web 2.0?", Crossroads, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 3.

Long, P. 2006, The Horizon Report, New Media Consortium and EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, Stanford, CA, USA.

Mason, R. & Rennie, F. 2007, "Using Web 2.0 for learning in the community", The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 196-203.

Matthews, K. 2006, "Research into podcasting technology including current and

possible future uses", [Online], , pp. Available from: http://mms.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2007/papers/32.pdf.[ 01/10/2010]

Millen, D., Feinberg, J. & Kerr, B. 2005, "Social bookmarking in the enterprise ", Queue, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 28.

Murugesan, S. 2007, "Understanding Web 2.0", IT Professional, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 34-41.

Musser, J. & O'Reilly, T. 2008, "Web 2.0 Report", [Online], , pp. 101. Available from: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/web2report/chapter/web20_report_excerpt.pdf. [01/10/2010]

N., K., Banerjee, U. & Kumar, S. 2009, "Proceeding of the 2nd annual conference on India software engineering conference - ISEC '09; Performance optimization of SOA based AJAX application ", , pp. 89.

Nardi, B.A., Schiano, D.J. & Gumbrecht, M. 2004, "Proceedings of the 2004 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work - CSCW '04; Blogging as social activity, or, would you let 900 million people read your diary? ", , pp. 222.

O'Reilly, T. 2005, , Web 2.0: Compact Definition? - O'Reilly Radar [Homepage of O'Reilly Radar], [Online]. Available: http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2005/10/web-20-compact-definition.html [2010, 2/13/2010] .

Ormond, P.R. 2008, "Podcasting enhances learning", vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 232-238.

Petreley, N. "Ajax simplified", Lnux Journal, vol. 2007, no. 157.

Pilgrim, C.J. 2008, "Proceedings of the nineteenth ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia - HT '08; Improving the usability of web 2.0 applications ", , pp. 239.

Plasmeijer, R., Jansen, J.M., Koopman, P. & Achten, P. 2008, "Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGPLAN symposium on Principles and practice of declarative programming - PPDP '08; Declarative Ajax and client side evaluation of workflows using iTasks ", , pp. 56.

Pogue, D. 2009, "Twitter ? It's what you make it", .

Resnick, P. & Varian, H.R. 1997, "Recommender systems ", Communications of the ACM, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 56-58.

Reston, V. 2007, , Social Networking Goes Global - comScore, Inc. Available: http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2007/07/Social_Networking_Goes_Global [2010, 2/13/2010] .

Sabin, M. & Leone, J. 2009, "Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on SIG-information technology education - SIGITE '09; IT education 2.0 ", , pp. 91.

Safran, C., Garcia-Barrios, V.M. & Ebner, M. 2009, "Proceedings of the 13th International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era on - MindTrek '09; The benefits of Geo-Tagging and microblogging in m-Learning ", , pp. 135.

Saljo, R. 2010, "Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: technologies, social memory and the performative nature of learning", Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 53-64.

Selwyn, N. 2010, "Looking beyond learning: notes towards the critical study of educational technology ", Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 65-73.

Shani, G., Chickering, M. & Meek, C. 2008, "Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Recommender systems - RecSys '08; Mining recommendations from the web ", , pp. 35.

Siersdorfer, S. & Sizov, S. 2009, "Proceedings of the 20th ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia - HT '09; Social recommender systems for web 2.0 folksonomies ", , pp. 261.

Silva, P. A. and Dix, A. 2007, "Usability: not as we know it!", 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on HCI 2008: People and Computers Xxi: Hci..But Not As We Know It British Computer Society Swinton, UK, UK, , pp. 103.

Smith, A. 2009, Web 2.0 and Official Statistics: The UK Perspective:, Office for the National Statistics, Titchfield, Fareham,Hants, United Kingdom.

Starbek, P., Erjavec, M.S. & Peklaj, C. 2010, "Teaching genetics with multimedia results in better acquisition of knowledge and improvement in comprehension ", Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, .

Stone, B. 2009, "Is Facebook growing up too fast", .

Stone, B. 2009, "Is this the future of the digital book", .

Stone, B. 2009, Lost in the real world, found via cyberspace, New York Times.

Subramanya, S.B. & Liu, H. 2008, "Proceeding of the 2008 ACM workshop on Search in social media - SSM '08; Socialtagger - collaborative tagging for blogs in the long tail ", , pp. 19.

Taghipour, N., Kardan, A. & Ghidary, S.S. 2007, "Proceedings of the 2007 ACM conference on Recommender systems - RecSys '07; Usage-based web recommendations ", , pp. 113.

Talbot, D. 2008, , Technology Review: How Obama Really Did It. Available: http://www.technologyreview.com/web/21222/ [2010, 2/13/2010] .

Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L. & Shen, R. 2008, "Proceeding of the 17th international conference on World Wide Web - WWW '08; Why web 2.0 is good for learning and for research ", , pp. 705.

Usluel, Y.K. & Mazman, S.G. 2009, "Adoption of Web 2.0 tools in distance education", International Journal of Human Sciences, .

van Wamelen, J. & de Kool, D. 2008, "Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance - ICEGOV '08; Web 2.0 ", , pp. 349.

Wang, Y.D. & Zahadat, N. 2009, "Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on SIG-information technology education - SIGITE '09; Teaching web development in the web 2.0 era ", , pp. 80.

Wigand, R.T., Benjamin, R.I. & Birkland, J.L.H. 2008, "Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Electronic commerce - ICEC '08; Web 2.0 and beyond ", , pp. 1.

Wong, J. & Hong, J. 2008, "Proceedings of the 4th international workshop on End-user software engineering - WEUSE '08; What do we "mashup" when we make mashups? ", , pp. 35-39.

Xu, S., Bao, S., Fei, B., Su, Z. & Yu, Y. 2008, "Proceedings of the 31st annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval - SIGIR '08; Exploring folksonomy for personalized search ", , pp. 155.

Zang, N., Rosson, M.B. & Nasser, V. 2008, "Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '08; Mashups ", , pp. 3171.

Zhang, M. 2009, "Proceedings of the third ACM conference on Recommender systems - RecSys '09; Enhancing diversity in Top-N recommendation ", , pp. 397.

Zucker, D.F. 2007, "What does AJAX mean for you? ", interactions, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 10.

Apendix 1.0