描述計算機Web 2.0的專業(yè)英語
計算機現(xiàn)在的社會上已經(jīng)是完全進(jìn)入我們的生活了，所以小編今天就給大家整理了有關(guān)于計算機的英語，大家可以參考一下哦
計算機英語
The phrase Web 2.0 was created by O'Reilly Media to refer to a supposed second generation of network-centric services available on the internet that let people collaborate and share information online in a new way - such as social networking sites, wikis, communication tools and folksonomies. O'Reilly Media, in collaboration with MediaLive International, used the phrase as a title for a series of conferences and since then it has become a popular, if ill-defined and often criticized, buzzword amongst the technical and marketing communities.
Introduction
With its allusion to the version numbers that commonly designate software upgrades, the phrase "Web 2.0" trendily hints at an improved form of the World Wide Web, and the term has appeared in occasional use for several years. The more explicit synonym "Participatory Web", emphasizing tools and platforms that enable the user to tag, blog, comment, modify, augment, select from, rank, and generally talk back to the contributions of other users and the general world community has increasingly seen use as an alternative phrase. Some commentators regard reputation-based public wikis, like Wikipedia, as pioneering examples of Web 2.0/Participatory Web technology.
O'Reilly Media and MediaLive International popularized the term Web 2.0 for a conference they hosted after Dale Dougherty mentioned it during a brainstorming session. Dougherty suggested that the Web was in a renaissance, with changing rules and evolving business models. The participants assembled examples — "DoubleClick was Web 1.0; Google AdSense is Web 2.0. Ofoto is Web 1.0; Flickr is Web 2.0" — rather than definitions. Dougherty recruited John Battelle for a business perspective, and it became the first Web 2.0 Conference in October 2004. A second annual conference was held in October 2005.
In their first conference opening talk, O'Reilly and Battelle summarized key principles they believe characterize Web 2.0 applications: the Web as platform; data as the driving force; network effects created by an architecture of participation; innovation in assembly of systems and sites composed by pulling together features from distributed, independent developers (a kind of "open source" development); lightweight business models enabled by content and service syndication; the end of the software adoption cycle ("the perpetual beta"); software above the level of a single device, leveraging the power of The Long Tail.
Earlier users of the phrase "Web 2.0" employed it as a synonym for "semantic web", and indeed, the two concepts complement each other. The combination of social networking systems such as FOAF and XFN with the development of tag-based folksonomies and delivered through blogs and wikis creates a natural basis for a semantic environment. Although the technologies and services that comprise Web 2.0 are less powerful than an internet in which the machines can understand and extract meaning, as proponents of the Semantic Web envision, Web 2.0 represents a step in its direction.
As used by its proponents, the phrase refers to one or more of the following:
The transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality, thus becoming computing platforms serving web applications to end users
A social phenomenon referring to an approach to creating and distributing Web content itself, characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use, and "the market as a conversation"
A more organized and categorized content, with a far more developed deeplinking web architecture
A shift in economic value of the web, possibly surpassing that of the dot com boom of the late 1990s
A marketing term to differentiate new web businesses from those of the dot com boom, which due to the bust now seem discredited
The resurgence of excitement around the possibilities of innovative web applications and services that gained a lot of momentum around mid 2005
Many find it easiest to define Web 2.0 by associating it with companies or products that embody its principles and Tim O'Reilly gave examples in his description of his four plus one levels in the hierarchy of Web 2.0-ness:
Level 3 applications, the most Wev 2.0, which could only exist on the internet, deriving their power from the human connections and network effects it makes possible and growing in effectiveness the more people use them. His examples were EBay, craigslist, Wikipedia, del.icio.us, Skype, Dodgeball, Adsense for Content, housingmaps.com and Amazon.
Level 2 applications, which can be offline but gain unique advantages from being online. His example was Flickr, benefiting from its shared photo database and community-generated tag database.
Level 1 applications are also available offline but gain features online. His examples were Writely, gaining group editing capability online and iTunes because of the music store portion.
Level 0 applications would work as well offline. His examples were MapQuest, Yahoo! Local, and Google Maps. Mapping applications using contributions from users to advantage can be level 2.
non-internet applications like email, IM clients and the telephone.
Examples other than those cited by O'Reilly include digg, Shoutwire, last.fm, and Technorati.
Commentators see many recently-developed concepts and technologies as contributing to Web 2.0, including weblogs, linklogs, wikis, podcasts, RSS feeds and other forms of many to many publishing; social software, web APIs, web standards, online web services, and others.
Proponents of the Web 2.0 concept say that it differs from early web development (retrospectively labeled Web 1.0) in that it moves away from static websites, the use of search engines, and surfing from one website to the next, towards a more dynamic and interactive World Wide Web. Others argue that the original and fundamental concepts of the WWW are not actually being superseded. Skeptics argue that the term is little more than a buzzword, or that it means whatever its proponents want it to mean in order to convince their customers, investors and the media that they are creating something fundamentally new, rather than continuing to develop and use well-established technologies.
The retrospectively-labeled "Web 1.0" often consisted of static HTML pages, rarely (if ever) updated. They depended solely on HTML, which a new Internet user could learn fairly easily. The success of the dot-com era depended on a more dynamic Web (sometimes labeled Web 1.5) where content management systems served dynamic HTML web pages created on the fly from a content database that could more easily be changed. In both senses, so-called eyeballing was considered intrinsic to the Web experience, thus making page hits and visual aesthetics important factors.
Proponents of the Web 2.0 approach believe that Web usage has started increasingly moving towards interaction and towards rudimentary social networks, which can serve content that exploits network effects with or without creating a visual, interactive web page. In one view, Web 2.0 sites act more as points of presence, or user-dependent web portals, than as traditional websites. They have become so advanced new internet users cannot create these websites, they are only users of web services, done by specialist professional experts.
Access to consumer-generated content facilitated by Web 2.0 brings the web closer to Tim Berners-Lee's original concept of the web as a democratic, personal, and DIY medium of communication.
Web 2.0是一個由O'Reilly Media創(chuàng)造的術(shù)語，它的應(yīng)用可以讓人了解目前萬維網(wǎng)正在進(jìn)行的一種改變——從一系列網(wǎng)站到一個成熟的為最終用戶提供網(wǎng)絡(luò)應(yīng)用的服務(wù)平臺。這種概念的支持者期望Web 2.0服務(wù)將在很多用途上最終取代桌面計算機應(yīng)用。Web 2.0并不是一個技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，不過它包含了技術(shù)架構(gòu)及應(yīng)用軟件。它的特點是鼓勵作為資訊最終利用者透過分享，使到可供分享的資源變得更豐盛;相反的，過去的各種網(wǎng)上分享方式則顯得支離破碎。
概覽
Web(在這里，指代“Web 1.0”)最早的概念包括不常更新(甚至不更新)的靜態(tài)HTML頁面。而.com時代的成功則是依靠一個更加動態(tài)的Web(指代“Web 1.5”)，其中CMS(內(nèi)容管理系統(tǒng))可以從不斷變化的內(nèi)容數(shù)據(jù)庫中即時生成動態(tài)HTML頁面。從這兩種意義上來說，所謂的眼球效應(yīng)則被認(rèn)為是固有的Web感受，也因此頁面點擊率和外觀成為了重要因素。
Web 2.0的支持者認(rèn)為Web的使用正日漸以交互性和未來的社會性網(wǎng)絡(luò)為導(dǎo)向，所提供的服務(wù)內(nèi)容，通過或不通過創(chuàng)建一個可視的、交互的網(wǎng)頁來充分挖掘網(wǎng)絡(luò)效應(yīng)。某種觀點認(rèn)為，和傳統(tǒng)網(wǎng)站相比，Web 2.0的網(wǎng)站更多表現(xiàn)為Point of presence或者是依賴用戶的門戶網(wǎng)站。
另一方面，其實早在1999年，著名的管理學(xué)者彼得·杜拉克 (Peter F. Drucker)就曾指出當(dāng)時的資訊科技發(fā)展走錯了方向，因為真正推動社會進(jìn)步的，是"Information Technology"里的"Information"，而不是"Technology"。若然單單著重技術(shù)層面而忽略了資訊的話，就只是一具空的軀殼，不能使社會增值。而Web 2.0很明顯是透過參與者的互動：不論是提供內(nèi)容、為內(nèi)容索引或評分，都能夠使他們所使用的平臺增值。透過參與者的互動，好的產(chǎn)品或資訊本著它的口碑，從一小撮使用者擴(kuò)展到一大班人，一但超過了臨界質(zhì)量，就會“像病毒一樣廣泛流傳”(葛拉威爾，2002)。
該詞的來源
有不少人以為"Web 2.0"是一個技術(shù)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，其實這是個美麗的誤會，因為Web 2.0只是一個用來闡述技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)變的術(shù)語。這個術(shù)語是由O'Reilly Media的Dale Dougherty 和 MediaLive 的 Craig Cline 在共同合作的腦力激蕩(brain storming)會議上提出來的。Dougherty提出了Web目前正處于復(fù)興時期，有著不斷改變的規(guī)則和不斷演化的商業(yè)模式。而Dougherty則是舉例說明——“DoubleClick是Web 1.0，Google AdSense 則是Web 2.0。 Ofoto是Web 1.0;Flickr 則是Web 2.0”，而不是給出確切的定義，和補充一個商業(yè)前景，同時O'Reilly Media、Battelle和MediaLive 在2004年10月啟動了第一個Web 2.0大會。第二次的年會已在2005年10月舉辦。
在他們的會議開場白上，O'Reilly和Battelle總結(jié)了他們認(rèn)為的表現(xiàn)了Web 2.0應(yīng)用特色的一些關(guān)鍵原則：
將Web作為平臺;
駕馭群體智慧
資料將變成未來的“Intel Inside”;
軟件不斷發(fā)行與升級的循環(huán)將會終結(jié)(“永久的Beta版”)
輕量型程序設(shè)計模型;
通過內(nèi)容和服務(wù)的聯(lián)合使輕量的業(yè)務(wù)模型可行;
軟件執(zhí)行將跨越單一設(shè)備
豐富的使用者體驗
分享和參與的架構(gòu) 所驅(qū)動的網(wǎng)絡(luò)效應(yīng);
通過帶動分散的、獨立的開發(fā)者把各個系統(tǒng)和網(wǎng)站組合形成大匯集的改革;
拉動長尾的能力;
快速的反應(yīng)與功能新增
雙向的互動
這種軟件發(fā)布中的版本號的使用從某一方面也暗示了整個Web已經(jīng)被看作是一種有著重大增值意義的新產(chǎn)品，而且正在被重新編寫和發(fā)布。
同語義網(wǎng)的比較
對于Web 2.0這個詞的一個較早的出現(xiàn)是作為語義網(wǎng)的同義詞。這兩個概念有點相似而且是互補的。結(jié)合了基于標(biāo)簽的Folksonomy(分眾分類法)的社會性網(wǎng)絡(luò)系統(tǒng)如FOAF和XFN，以及通過Blog和Wiki進(jìn)行發(fā)表，已經(jīng)創(chuàng)建了一個語義環(huán)境的天然基礎(chǔ)。
技術(shù)
Web 2.0技術(shù)基礎(chǔ)比較復(fù)雜而且還在演化中，但可以肯定的是包括服務(wù)器端軟件、內(nèi)容聯(lián)合組織、消息協(xié)議、基于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的瀏覽器和各種不同的客戶端應(yīng)用程序。(一般會避免使用非標(biāo)準(zhǔn)瀏覽器的一些增強功能和插件)這些不同但是互補的方法提供了Web2.0信息存儲、創(chuàng)建和分發(fā)的能力，這些能力遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出了先前人們對網(wǎng)站的期望。
如果一個網(wǎng)站使用了以下一些技術(shù)作為特色的話，就說他是利用了Web 2.0技術(shù)：
技術(shù)方面：
CSS, 語義化有效的XHTML標(biāo)記，和Microformats
不突出的豐富應(yīng)用技術(shù)(例如Ajax)
數(shù)據(jù)的聯(lián)合，RSS/ATOM
RSS/ATOM數(shù)據(jù)的聚合
規(guī)則且有意義的URL
支持對網(wǎng)志發(fā)帖子
REST 或者是XML Web服務(wù)API
某些社會性網(wǎng)絡(luò)方面
通用概念：
網(wǎng)站不能是封閉的——它必須可以很方便地被其他系統(tǒng)獲取或?qū)懭霐?shù)據(jù)。
用戶應(yīng)該在網(wǎng)站上擁有他們自己的數(shù)據(jù)。
完全地基于Web —— 大多數(shù)成功的Web 2.0網(wǎng)站可以幾乎完全通過瀏覽器來使用
內(nèi)容聯(lián)合組織
Web 2.0的首要的也是最重要的發(fā)展，包括了使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化協(xié)議的網(wǎng)站內(nèi)容的聯(lián)合，這可以讓最終用戶在其他環(huán)境中使用網(wǎng)站的數(shù)據(jù)，包括另一個網(wǎng)站、瀏覽器插件、或者一個單獨的桌面應(yīng)用程序。這些聯(lián)合協(xié)議包括RSS，資源描述框架(RDF)，和Atom，這些都是基于XML的。特別的協(xié)議如FOAF和XFN(XHTML朋友網(wǎng)絡(luò))——這兩者都是為了社會性網(wǎng)絡(luò)開發(fā)的——擴(kuò)展了網(wǎng)站的功能或者可讓最終用戶不集中于網(wǎng)站就可以進(jìn)行交互。參見microformats，以查詢更多的專門數(shù)據(jù)格式。
由于發(fā)展太快，很多這些協(xié)議都是事實上的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)而不是正式的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
Web服務(wù)
雙向的消息協(xié)議是Web 2.0架構(gòu)的關(guān)鍵元素之一。兩個主要的類型是RESTful和SOAP方法。REST(Representational State Transfer)表示了一種Web服務(wù) 客戶端傳送所有的事務(wù)的狀態(tài)。SOAP(Simple Object Access Protocal)和類似的輕量方法都依賴服務(wù)器來保存狀態(tài)信息。兩種情況下，服務(wù)是通過一個API調(diào)用的。這個API常常是根據(jù)網(wǎng)站的特殊需求定義的，但是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的Web服務(wù)API(例如，給Blog發(fā)帖)的API依然被廣泛使用。一般來說Web服務(wù)的通用語言是XML，但并不一定，還存在大量不同的其他語言，如JSON，YAML等。
最近，出現(xiàn)了一個被稱之為Ajax的混合形式，用來增強基于瀏覽器的Web應(yīng)用的用戶體驗。這可以用于一些特別的形式(如Google Maps、UrMap)或是一些開放的形式，可以直接利用Web服務(wù)API、數(shù)據(jù)聯(lián)合，甚至是繪畫。
寬泛得說，聯(lián)合是一種Web服務(wù)的形式，但是Web服務(wù)形式的使用卻不是很常見的。
參見 WSDL(Web服務(wù)描述語言)和Web服務(wù)規(guī)范表。
服務(wù)器軟件
Web 2.0 的功能是在已有的Web服務(wù)器架構(gòu)上建立的，但是更加強調(diào)后臺軟件。數(shù)據(jù)聯(lián)合不僅僅是名稱上和內(nèi)容管理發(fā)布方法不同，而且Web服務(wù)要求更加強壯的數(shù)據(jù)庫和工作流的支持，并且變得與傳統(tǒng)的企業(yè)內(nèi)部網(wǎng)的應(yīng)用服務(wù)器功能更加相似。供應(yīng)商不管是用一個通用服務(wù)器方法，可以把所有需要的功能都集中到一個服務(wù)器平臺上，或者是一個Web服務(wù)器插件的方法，可以使用增強了API接口的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)發(fā)布工具和其他工具。不管選擇的是哪種途徑，Web 2.0的進(jìn)化不會為這些選擇做出重大改變。
社會影響
Web 2.0中出現(xiàn)的數(shù)據(jù)聯(lián)合和消息傳送能力，提出了潛在的一種可能性——在完全不同的在線社區(qū)之間創(chuàng)建一個更加緊密的社會構(gòu)造。同時還出現(xiàn)了一些新的術(shù)語來集合性地代表這些共同的社團(tuán)，包括blogshpere：網(wǎng)志的世界，syndisphere：內(nèi)容聯(lián)合發(fā)布，以及 wikisphere，然而其他的觀察者認(rèn)為這些措辭和內(nèi)在的含義太空泛了。
商業(yè)影響
可能的由Web 2.0帶來的指數(shù)級增長的業(yè)務(wù)的原因，可歸結(jié)為以人為本的消費和以計算機為本的消費的區(qū)別。
對于價值的鑒定和消費的過程中無需不同人為參與，由于Web 2.0的出現(xiàn)，也是完全可能的事情了。各個組織會不斷使用諸如RSS/Atom/RDF之類的聯(lián)合格式來聯(lián)合他們的價值提案。除了價值的聯(lián)合外，Web服務(wù)終點發(fā)布將簡化聯(lián)合的價值的消費過程。
事實上，至今沒有人能給Web2.0下一個明確的定義。每個人眼中的Web2.0都有不同的表述。技術(shù)研究者眼中的Web2.0是SNS、BLOG等社會性軟件的興起; 博客們則認(rèn)為Web2.0是人與人之間更為便捷的互動; 在風(fēng)險投資商眼中，Web2.0又代表了新的商業(yè)機會和行業(yè)游戲規(guī)則。
而從行銷者的角度來看，Web2.0則至少意味著三個方面的內(nèi)容： 一種創(chuàng)新的媒介形式、一個集中的社群環(huán)境，以及一種全新行銷理念。
目前逐漸盛行的BLOG行銷被認(rèn)為是Web2.0行銷的典型形式之一。
早期的網(wǎng)絡(luò)行銷不外乎是透過電子郵件發(fā)送、彈出式視窗、橫幅式廣告等幾種手法。 最常見的例子就是入口網(wǎng)站將其網(wǎng)頁上的廣告空間待價而沽，等到廣告商上門之后，入口網(wǎng)站再依點選率或是擺放時間的長短來收取費用。 這樣的缺點是，廣告商永遠(yuǎn)無法知道你所擺放的廣告是不是真的接觸到你的目標(biāo)客戶，還是只是在茫茫的網(wǎng)海中找尋一兩個真正有需求的消費者。 就像是Tim O'Reilly所說的一樣，如果Web 1.0的代表者是Netscape，那Web 2.0的代表就是Google。 Google一改以往廣告商尋找消費者的思考模式，而改以消費者自行查詢廣告的思維模式來經(jīng)營。 Google將首頁保持干凈，但在關(guān)鍵字搜尋的時候提供你想要查找資訊的相關(guān)廣告，不但確保每一個點選進(jìn)網(wǎng)站的瀏漤者都是對該資訊有興趣的潛在消費者，也一并解決了消費者對廣告視窗擾人的困擾。 而前一陣子Google推出的Google Page也有異曲同工之妙，利用免費提供部落格服務(wù)的形式，從中蒐集更多消費者的習(xí)性，其中的用意就是要為消費者量身訂做一個個人化的Google。
描述計算機Web 2.0的專業(yè)英語相關(guān)文章：