...
read more
2008年12月9日 星期二
[+/-] : YouTube 小寶
2008年1月31日 星期四
[+/-] : Internet大破譯(二): Web-NG
前文談到Web 2.0的網路泡沫問題，趁閒暇之餘再來把沒說清楚的議題稍做說明。
許多人對於Web 2.0搞不清楚，根源於這個名詞到底界定了什麼？為什麼突然之間大家都在談論？其實，Web 2.0只是一個行銷名詞，而不是一個新的架構，也不是一個新的技術。由於字眼中有2.0這麼明確的數字，讓大家以為是一個什麼東西的新版本。
在2006年五月有一位英國人Mark Little，提出了有別於Web 2.0的說法: Web-NG (Web Next Generation)，當然這個字眼也只是行銷名詞，但至少去掉了中間令人混淆的版本數字。他並未說明Web-NG的內容應該是什麼，筆者打算就行銷面與技術面來解釋一下。
什麼是Web-NG:
一個以使用者為導向，讓使用者間以Web方式互動，並讓網站間以Internet互通資訊，藉由這個機制可以盡可能消除虛擬與真實間差異性的下一代World Wide Web。
關於使用者間的互動，已經有太多文章談到，在此就不再贅述。
什麼是網站間以Internet互通資訊？就是RSS與XML等讓網站間交換訊息的機制，或是EDI、ebXML、RosettaNet等B2B應用，如此不僅網友間互動，連網站間也能夠互動，如此一來您的blog只需刊登一次，全球blog互連網站都同步更新。當然這個也不是新技術，但他應該變成下一代Web的基本需求。
試想，現在的網路拍賣的買賣雙方，必須要都使用同一個拍賣網站才可能有成交的機會，如果您上ebay也可以獲得任何拍賣互聯網站的訊息，對使用者來說不是更省事？如果互聯網間利潤計算能夠攤提，這個空想也許可能實現。
但是不同網站間的程式設計與流程架構可能不同，如何能夠整合串聯？也許SOA(Service-Oriented Architecture, 服務導向架構)是一個可行方案(將在另文談論這個議題)。
『藉由這個機制可以盡可能消除虛擬與真實間差異性』又是什麼意思？
前文有提到: Internet的最終里程會將虛擬與真實結合，而讓使用者毫不自知的活在Internet之下。
本網站在2002年就已經提出了，網路最終會形成虛實難辨的服務，屆時您已經很難界定哪些服務是虛擬的，哪些服務是真實的。
以前沒有GPS及PDA地圖服務時，您只能坐在電腦前面查地圖，而現在也許您的手機就可以查地圖。以前你在交友網站上找男女朋友，以後也許你走在路上時，你的手機就會告訴你前方走過來的人，就是您最速配的人選。
現在出入國家都需要護照，也許以後您只須走過閘門，任何一個國家的管理單位就可以確認身份。以後也許您在任何一個國家出入，不需要再調整手錶時間，GPS網路已經幫你自動轉成當地時間。有太多說不完的可能性，都可以讓虛擬與真實結合。
Web 2.0只是在兩年前美國新創公司用來騙創投出錢的一個名詞。Web-NG的概念可以讓你跳脫Web 2.0的小框框，使您的企業展望更有前瞻性的網路未來，不妨參考一下吧!
引述：http://www.dns.com.tw/modules/news/article.php?storyid=489...
read more
許多人對於Web 2.0搞不清楚，根源於這個名詞到底界定了什麼？為什麼突然之間大家都在談論？其實，Web 2.0只是一個行銷名詞，而不是一個新的架構，也不是一個新的技術。由於字眼中有2.0這麼明確的數字，讓大家以為是一個什麼東西的新版本。
在2006年五月有一位英國人Mark Little，提出了有別於Web 2.0的說法: Web-NG (Web Next Generation)，當然這個字眼也只是行銷名詞，但至少去掉了中間令人混淆的版本數字。他並未說明Web-NG的內容應該是什麼，筆者打算就行銷面與技術面來解釋一下。
什麼是Web-NG:
一個以使用者為導向，讓使用者間以Web方式互動，並讓網站間以Internet互通資訊，藉由這個機制可以盡可能消除虛擬與真實間差異性的下一代World Wide Web。
關於使用者間的互動，已經有太多文章談到，在此就不再贅述。
什麼是網站間以Internet互通資訊？就是RSS與XML等讓網站間交換訊息的機制，或是EDI、ebXML、RosettaNet等B2B應用，如此不僅網友間互動，連網站間也能夠互動，如此一來您的blog只需刊登一次，全球blog互連網站都同步更新。當然這個也不是新技術，但他應該變成下一代Web的基本需求。
試想，現在的網路拍賣的買賣雙方，必須要都使用同一個拍賣網站才可能有成交的機會，如果您上ebay也可以獲得任何拍賣互聯網站的訊息，對使用者來說不是更省事？如果互聯網間利潤計算能夠攤提，這個空想也許可能實現。
但是不同網站間的程式設計與流程架構可能不同，如何能夠整合串聯？也許SOA(Service-Oriented Architecture, 服務導向架構)是一個可行方案(將在另文談論這個議題)。
『藉由這個機制可以盡可能消除虛擬與真實間差異性』又是什麼意思？
前文有提到: Internet的最終里程會將虛擬與真實結合，而讓使用者毫不自知的活在Internet之下。
本網站在2002年就已經提出了，網路最終會形成虛實難辨的服務，屆時您已經很難界定哪些服務是虛擬的，哪些服務是真實的。
以前沒有GPS及PDA地圖服務時，您只能坐在電腦前面查地圖，而現在也許您的手機就可以查地圖。以前你在交友網站上找男女朋友，以後也許你走在路上時，你的手機就會告訴你前方走過來的人，就是您最速配的人選。
現在出入國家都需要護照，也許以後您只須走過閘門，任何一個國家的管理單位就可以確認身份。以後也許您在任何一個國家出入，不需要再調整手錶時間，GPS網路已經幫你自動轉成當地時間。有太多說不完的可能性，都可以讓虛擬與真實結合。
Web 2.0只是在兩年前美國新創公司用來騙創投出錢的一個名詞。Web-NG的概念可以讓你跳脫Web 2.0的小框框，使您的企業展望更有前瞻性的網路未來，不妨參考一下吧!
引述：http://www.dns.com.tw/modules/news/article.php?storyid=489...
read more
[+/-] : 一個新名詞：Web-NG
Web-NG
As I mentioned before, I'm still not so sure about all of the things that get the Web 2.0 tag applied to them. Is it a technology (seems not)? Is it an architecture (seems not)? But maybe it is a name for a transition that occurred a few years back in the way we use and interact with the WWW. From what I've seen and heard so far, it just seems to be a name for another era in our ongoing evolution of the Web. And as far as that goes, I'm happy to use a tag.
However, as reported, Orielly has decided to trademark Web 2.0. Since it would appear he invented the term, there's nothing wrong with him wanting to protect it. Unfortunately I think they're a little late off the mark on this one. If you believe everything that's been written (and I have no reason to not do so), then the name came up in 2004. Since then it has taken off like wildfire in many circles (I've been reviewing papers for a number of conferences and workshops over the past 2 months and the term has come up on several occasions). It would seem to me that the cat's out of the bag on this one and it's far too late to come along and put a trademark on it. Alright, maybe this was always the intention but it's just taken a little longer than expected. But I'd still say it's too late. But then I'm no lawyer and I'm sure this will go in their favour. (Side note: it's a good job that another Tim didn't trademark the Web.)
So going back to what I said at the start of this entry: I think having some classification for this point in time of the Web's evolution is a good thing. If we can't use Web 2.0 for fear of getting Cease-and-Desist orders, then I propose we coin another term. The best one I've come up with so far is Web-NG, which I freely give to the world ;-) No fear that I'm going to retract that and try and trademark it. If anyone can think of a better name, then let me know. The name is secondary: the fact that it's free for use for all time is the most important thing.
引述：http://markclittle.blogspot.com/2006/05/web-ng.html...
read more
As I mentioned before, I'm still not so sure about all of the things that get the Web 2.0 tag applied to them. Is it a technology (seems not)? Is it an architecture (seems not)? But maybe it is a name for a transition that occurred a few years back in the way we use and interact with the WWW. From what I've seen and heard so far, it just seems to be a name for another era in our ongoing evolution of the Web. And as far as that goes, I'm happy to use a tag.
However, as reported, Orielly has decided to trademark Web 2.0. Since it would appear he invented the term, there's nothing wrong with him wanting to protect it. Unfortunately I think they're a little late off the mark on this one. If you believe everything that's been written (and I have no reason to not do so), then the name came up in 2004. Since then it has taken off like wildfire in many circles (I've been reviewing papers for a number of conferences and workshops over the past 2 months and the term has come up on several occasions). It would seem to me that the cat's out of the bag on this one and it's far too late to come along and put a trademark on it. Alright, maybe this was always the intention but it's just taken a little longer than expected. But I'd still say it's too late. But then I'm no lawyer and I'm sure this will go in their favour. (Side note: it's a good job that another Tim didn't trademark the Web.)
So going back to what I said at the start of this entry: I think having some classification for this point in time of the Web's evolution is a good thing. If we can't use Web 2.0 for fear of getting Cease-and-Desist orders, then I propose we coin another term. The best one I've come up with so far is Web-NG, which I freely give to the world ;-) No fear that I'm going to retract that and try and trademark it. If anyone can think of a better name, then let me know. The name is secondary: the fact that it's free for use for all time is the most important thing.
引述：http://markclittle.blogspot.com/2006/05/web-ng.html...
read more
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)