Web 2.
0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
Web 2.0 Re-examined:
The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
Coach Wei, cwei@nexaweb.com
Abstract
This essay re-examines web 2.0 by looking at its technology stack and impact on
enterprise computing, in contrast to the common consumer-centric point of view.
Categorizing the landscape into Consumer Web 2.0 and Enterprise Web 2.0, the essay
establishes a web 2.0 technology stack that forms the foundation of a paradigm shift
called “architecture of partition”. In the end, the business impact of web 2.0 technologies
on enterprises is presented.
Table of Content
Web 2.0: the State of Confusion ..................................................................................... 2
What Is Web 2.0?............................................................................................................ 2
The “Consumer-centric” View Causes Confusion ..................................................... 2
The Differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 ........................................................ 3
The Two Pillars: Consumer Web 2.0 and Enterprise Web 2.0................................... 4
Key Characteristics of Consumer Web 2.0 and Enterprise Web 2.0 .......................... 5
Web 2.0: The Paradigm Shifts ........................................................................................ 5
Architecture of Participation: A Usage Paradigm Shift.............................................. 5
Architecture of Partition: A Technology Paradigm Shift ........................................... 5
The Rise of a Web 2.0 Technology Stack....................................................................... 6
The Fundamental Flaws of Web 1.0 ........................................................................... 6
The Web 2.0 Technology Stack.................................................................................. 7
From Browser to Application Client Container.......................................................... 8
From Unreliable HTTP to Internet Messaging Bus.................................................... 8
From Application Server to Mashup Server: Next Generation Middleware .............. 9
Compatibility with Web 1.0 Is Key ............................................................................ 9
The Business Value of Web 2.0 for Enterprises ........................................................... 10
A Better Way for Enterprise IT ................................................................................ 10
New Possibilities – Social Computing...................................................................... 11
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 11
References..................................................................................................................... 12
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 1 12/7/2006
Web 2.0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
Web 2.0: the State of Confusion
Web 2.0 is exciting, but there are lots of confusions today, even among noted experts.
There are two schools of opinions among experts. The first school is critical of Web 2.0.
This group is represented by Tim Berners-Lee and Russell Raw. Their opinions are:
1. There is nothing fundamentally different between “Web 1.0” and the so-called
“Web 2.0”;
2. Web 2.0 has nothing new and is based on the same technology as of Web 1.0;
3. Web 2.0 is just a piece of jargon.
The second group of experts are Web 2.0 champions. This group is represented by Tim
O’Reilly, Paul Graham and Dion HinchCliffe. This group argues that:
1. Web 2.0 is here and it is big;
2. “Architecture of Participation”, “the Network Effect (social network)”, and
“Harnessing the collective intelligence” are fundamentally new and different from
web 1.0;
3. Web 2.0 is more about a paradigm shift in how people use the web, less about
new technology. “Web 2.0” is not based on a technology shift, but rather a usage
paradigm shift.
Despite the confusion, the term “Web 2.0” is getting widely known, accepted and
adopted since Tim O’Reilly’s original essay on Web 2.0 published in September 2005.
However, these confusions must be addressed.
The followings are three key questions that need to be clarified:
1. What is Web 2.0? Is it just a consumer phenomenon?
2. Is there any new technology that differentiates web 2.0 from web 1.0?
3. Given that the most web 2.0 examples such as MySpace, Flickr and Google do
not relate to enterprises well, what is the real, tangible and measurable business
value of web 2.0 from an enterprise perspective?
It is time to re-examine Web 2.0.
What Is Web 2.0?
Web 2.0 is the next evolution of the web that has a new usage paradigm as well as a new
technology paradigm. The former is characterized by “architecture of participation”
and the latter is characterized by “architecture of partition”.
The “Consumer-centric” View Causes Confusion
There is no doubt that the “web 2.0” phenomenon is ignited by the success of consumer
websites like MySpace, YouTube and Flickr. From these consumer website, analysts
established “social networking” via the network effect as a key feature of web 2.0.
Though it is possible that enterprise oriented social computing applications may emerge
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 2 12/7/2006
Web 2.0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
to address specific enterprise concerns, it is not clear how social networking can change
enterprise IT on a more fundamental level. Analysts further characterized “Architecture
of Participation” as another key element of web 2.0, as evident from YouTube and Flickr.
Similarly it is unclear whether/how “architecture of participation” would impact
enterprise IT mission. Enterprise IT’s mission is simple: to enable and facilitate the
interaction and integration of IT systems and people. There is no doubt that web 2.0
applications like blogs and wikis based on “architecture of participation” can be useful to
enterprises, but is there anything beyond blogs and wikis?
The key technology behind most consumer web 2.0 websites, Ajax, is not new. The
popular “mashup” concept sounds new but in reality is based on what has been built into
the browser for many years. The “consumer-centric” perspective limits how we look at
the technology aspect of web 2.0 and leads to the conclusion that web 2.0 involves no
technology advancement.
Further, “architecture of participation”, “social networking” and “harness the collective
intelligence” are all usage patterns. They do not relate to technology. In fact, they can be
supported well on web 1.0 technologies; reinforcing the common belief that web 2.0 has
no technology foundation but rather a buzzword created by marketers.
The Differences between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0
Tim O’Reilly observed the differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0 from a consumer
perspective in his original essay:
DoubleClick --> Google AdSense
Ofoto --> Flickr
Akamai --> BitTorrent
mp3.com --> Napster
Britannica Online --> Wikipedia
personal websites --> Blogging
Evite --> upcoming.org and EVDB
domain name speculation --> search engine optimization
page views --> cost per click
screen scraping --> web services
Publishing --> Participation
content management systems --> Wikis
directories (taxonomy) --> tagging ("folksonomy")
Stickiness --> Syndication
From Consumer Web 1.0 to Consumer Web 2.0
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 3 12/7/2006
Web 2.0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
From an enterprise perspective, web 2.0 introduces a very different set of changes:
Technology
Browser Æ Application Client Container
HTML Æ Declarative application markup
HTTP (Pull) Æ Push/pull, pub/sub, reliable
Application Server Æ Mashup Server
Enterprise Application Integration Æ SOA/Enterprise Mashup
Culture/business operations
Press release Æ Corporate blogs
Centralized Æ Distributed
Packaged software; close source Æ SaaS / On-demand; open source
Superbowl/TV Ads Æ Google Ads
Top down (dictatorship) Æ Bottom up (democracy)
From Enterprise Web 1.0 to Enterprise Web 2.0
The Two Pillars: Consumer Web 2.0 and Enterprise Web 2.0
Web 2.0 has two pillars: consumer web 2.0 and enterprise web 2.0. These two do overlap,
in particular, in the area of social computing.
Consumer web 2.0 and enterprise web 2.0 have different characteristics, as shown below:
Consumer Web 2.0 Enterprise Web 2.0
Architecture of Participation Architecture of Partition
Social networking On Demand computing/SaaS
Harnessing the collective intelligence Enterprise social computing
HTML Mashup Enterprise mashup
The Web As Platform
Rich User Experience
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 4 12/7/2006
Web 2.0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
Key Characteristics of Consumer Web 2.0 and Enterprise Web 2.0
The technology paradigm shifts with web 2.0 brings tremendous, tangible and
measurable ROI to corporate IT. Further, the new possibilities enabled by web 2.0 such
as social computing are bringing corporate IT to new horizons.
Web 2.0: The Paradigm Shifts
Web 2.0 refers to the 2nd generation web that is driven by two paradigm shifts from the
first generation web:
1. A usage paradigm shift
2. A technology paradigm shift
Architecture of Participation: A Usage Paradigm Shift
The usage paradigm shift is the most obvious aspect of web 2.0 as seen from various
consumer websites like MySpace, YouTube and Flickr. The characteristics have been
very well articulated by Tim O’Reilly, Dion HinchCliffe and Jeremy Geelan, etc:
1. Architecture of participation
2. The network effect via social networking
3. Harnessing the collective intelligence
Architecture of Partition: A Technology Paradigm Shift
Over the history of computing, computing architecture partition has been swinging back
and forth between two extremes: server-centric or client centric architecture. We started
with mainframe computing, which is a highly centralized model. In the mainframe era,
computing happens on the server side and the client is a dumb display terminal. The next
paradigm is client/server computing, where most of the computing happens on the client
side. During web 1.0, we went back to a model similar to mainframe, where all the
processing happens on the server side and the client side is simply a browser for
displaying HTML pages.
The truth of the matter is that neither server centric nor client centric architecture is
always appropriate. Unfortunately developers never had the flexibility to deciding the
right architectural partition for their applications. Web 2.0 brings architectural partition
flexibility to developers for the first time in history. With web 2.0, developers can
partition the application in a way that is best appropriate for the application, rather than
trying to fit into a pre-determined architecture. Some applications are best served by
leaving only user interface and some UI logic on the client side. Some applications
require all UI logic on the client side to deliver optimal result. For even more
sophisticated applications, there is requirement to have a certain business logic and data
on the client side as well. Web 2.0 technologies enable developers to decide how much
computation stays on the client side and how much stays on the server side, delivering
optimal results.
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 5 12/7/2006
Web 2.0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
UI UI UI UI UI
UI logic UI logic UI logic UI logic
Client
Tier
Biz logic Biz logic
Data
Web 2.0 (2005 - future)
Web 1.0
(1990-2005)
Client/Server
(1970s-1990s)
Mainframe
(1940s-1970s)
UI logic UI logic
Server
Biz logic Biz logic Biz logic Biz logic
Tier
Data Data Data Data Data
The Evolution of Computing and Architecture of Partition (source: www.coachwei.com)
The Rise of a Web 2.0 Technology Stack
The Fundamental Flaws of Web 1.0
Web 1.0 was designed for sharing and browsing hyper-linked documents. Its technology
stack serves this purpose well. However, it was never meant for applications and has
following limitations:
1. The “click, wait and page refresh” interaction model: This user interaction
model is designed for document browsing, not for interactive applications.
Interactive applications require “stateful” computing that features incremental
updates and asynchronous communications.
2. Lack of support for two-way communications: the web 1.0 communication
based on HTTP is a client-pull model that can be initiated by the client only.
Server can not initiate communications with clients. A good analogy to this model
is a phone system that can only receive calls but not make calls. This one-way
communication model is fine for browsing. However, a lot of applications require
two way communications (client pull as well as server push).
3. Lack of support for messaging reliability: A lot of business applications have a
certain level of messaging reliability requirement beyond what web supports, For
example, only and only once delivery, guaranteed order of delivery and
guaranteed delivery. The highly distributed and heterogeneous nature of the
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 6 12/7/2006
Web 2.0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
Internet means that it can not guarantee any of such. The frequent network
disruption of Wi-Fi and wireless data services makes the problems even worse.
4. Lack of support for mobile devices: mobile web was an afterthought during web
1.0. Over the years, the industry has tried many different approaches to make the
web available and useable on mobile devices, such as web clipping and WAP.
5. Lack of support for accessibility: HTML itself does not offer good accessibility
support. It mixes visual presentation with data and provides no clear semantic
ways of indicating the meaning of different elements so that accessibility tools
can convey to users. Browser vendors have done a lot of workaround to make the
web accessible, though significantly limited by the underlying inefficiencies.
6. Lack of support for rich user experience: The complexity of business
applications requires much richer interactivity than standard browsing experience.
7. Lack of support for offline computing
The problems of web 1.0 have not gone unnoticed. Many developers have tried many
different “hacks” to deal with various aspects of the problems, such as writing JavaScript
widgets for richer user interface and using techniques like “comet” to provide two-way
communications. To a large degree, the rise of Ajax precisely indicates how web 1.0
does not deliver what people are looking for as the web moved beyond browsing.
The Web 2.0 Technology Stack
HTML UI User Interface
Web Browser
Client logic and data
Application Client Container
se
Unreliab
espon
R
le HTTP
HTTP
Internet Messaging Bus
liable
Reques
Unre
Enterprise Mashup Server
Web Application Server
SOAP REST JSON JDBC Legacy
Web 1.0 Technology Stack Web 2.0 Technology Stack
From Web 1.0 to Web 2.0: The Evolution of Technology Stack (source: www.coachwei.com)
Web 2.0 introduces a technology stack that addresses the flaws of web 1.0 and delivers
the “architecture of partition”. This new stack includes three building blocks:
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 7 12/7/2006
Web 2.0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
1. Application Client Container: the client engine for running rich web 2.0
applications;
2. Internet Messaging Bus: a bi-directional reliable messaging layer.
3. Enterprise Mashup Server: the middleware that enables mashing up
heterogeneous data, services and business processes.
From Browser to Application Client Container
“Application Client Container” is the client engine for web 2.0 applications. Many of the
Ajax toolkits available today are early example of such client engines.
What is an Application Client Container (ACC)?
1. ACC is stateful. A web browser is designed to be stateless – it discards all the
current state information when a new page is loaded. This is the model of
“browsing”. Applications are inherently stateful. To support stateful applications
on top of the stateless browser engine, developers have to do a lot of hacking to
work around the problem. ACC gives applications such support out of box.
2. ACC supports asynchronous interactions by default while browsers require
careful developer coding to do so;
3. ACC can support offline computing while web 1.0 applications are online only.
4. ACC supports mobile computing as a first class citizen.
5. ACC supports accessibility.
6. ACC supports rich user experience.
There are 180 JavaScript libraries available today trying to compensate for the wrong
client platform for applications. These Ajax toolkits represent the early evolution of
Application Client Container. They still have limitations (for example, lack of support for
offline computing), but they are leading the way to the next generation client side
computing.
From Unreliable HTTP to Internet Messaging Bus
The Internet was initially designed for presenting and sharing hyperlinked documents in
the form of Web pages. Therefore, the communication layer is based on the HTTP
“Request/Response” model, which adequately serves the purpose of “browsing.” Internet
Messaging Bus is an enhanced HTTP communication layer that delivers reliability and
two-way communications.
First off, Internet Messaging Bus supports guaranteed message delivery. Without IMB,
when a user submits a request to the server, whether this request will actually arrive at the
server or not is unpredictable. If there is a network problem (either with the ISP or within
the corporate network itself), there is a good chance the request will be lost. However,
this is not always a problem for Internet browsing, as the user can always click the link a
second and third time if the first URL request is lost. Although this seems like a basic
example in very basic terms, it is a serious problem for mission critical enterprise
applications. The case and point being, that it is not out of the realm of possibility that a
multi-million dollar transaction can be literally be “riding on the line.”
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 8 12/7/2006
Web 2.0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
IMB supports guaranteed order of message delivery. Without IMB, if the user submits
two requests in a row, there is no guarantee that the first request will arrive at the server
before the second request. Again, while this is not necessarily a problem for browsing
Web pages, the result of a later request can be dependent on an earlier request when using
the Internet for business applications. A random ordering of message delivery makes the
application behavior unpredictable — a pattern that many Web application users are
familiar with.
IMB supports once and only once message delivery. Without IMB, a user request may
arrive on the server side twice or even more, if some network problem caused the
message to be cached and delivered more than once. Again, while this is not necessarily a
problem for browsing Web pages, it can cause serious transactional problems for
business applications.
IMB supports server-initiated communications (server push). HTTP supports client-pull
only. In a “client pull only” model, the server works like a phone that never rings.
Obviously this is not a problem for browsing because the server needs to simply respond
to page requests. However, many enterprise applications require the server to initiate
interactions. For example, a stock trading application needs to push the latest stock price
to the end user from the server. To side step this problem, developers typically use
“client polling,” but this significantly increases the server/network load and therefore
decreases application performance.
From Application Server to Mashup Server: Next Generation
Middleware
The evolution on the server side is the emergence of a new category of middleware called
“Enterprise Mashup Server”.
Application Server is the middleware component in a web 1.0 stack. An “Enterprise
Mashup Server” is not a replacement for an application server, but instead, an additional
component to dramatically simplify the development and maintenance of composite
applications. An enterprise mashup server enables three tasks:
1. Data integration
2. Service/business process integration (logic integration)
3. UI integration
“Mashup” as a term was created in the consumer space to describe the kind of
applications like “HousingMaps”. As a consumer application, “HousingMaps” requires
only UI integration. For business applications, it is highly likely there will be need to
achieve integration at data tier or middle tier. In particular, the adoption of SOA creates a
natural service repository for service/business integration for mashup applications.
Compatibility with Web 1.0 Is Key
The rising web 2.0 technology stack is not replacing the web 1.0 stack. Instead,
compatibility with web 1.0 is a key requirement.
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 9 12/7/2006
Web 2.0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
On the client side, application client container is not replacing browser. Browsers serve
the purpose of web browsing well. Application client containers may be implemented by
leveraging available means from web browsers and are likely to run inside web browsers.
Some of the Ajax Engines, such as Apache XAP, are early examples of such client
containers. .
Internet Messaging Bus is not a replacement for HTTP either. Instead, IMB relies on
HTTP and is built on top of HTTP.
Mashup Server does not replace application server either. Application server
functionalities are just as important for web 2.0 application as web 1.0 ones. Enterprise
Mashup Servers typically run inside an application server, thus enabling developers to
leverage all the web 1.0 capabilities.
The Business Value of Web 2.0 for Enterprises
A Better Way for Enterprise IT
Corporate IT has always been centered on application development and maintenance.
Each evolution of computing, from mainframe to client/server to web 1.0, brings
dramatically improved efficiency, significantly lowered costs and new business
opportunities. Web 2.0 is not different either.
The web 2.0 technology stack offers real, tangible, and measurable benefits to enterprises
as a better way to build, deploy and maintain enterprise IT solutions, resulting in better
user productivity, lower operations costs and reduced development and maintenance
costs.
• Reduced development and maintenance costs. The Web 2.0 technology stack
eliminates the need to install client software, enabling companies to leverage the
Internet more cost-effectively. Equally important, an organization can deploy the
same version of a web 2.0 application to all its users, across heterogeneous client
configurations and network connection types. This eliminates the need to develop and
maintain multiple client software versions, the need to standardize client systems and
the need to upgrade network infrastructure.
• Reduced operations costs. All clients gain access to new or updated business
application immediately upon connecting with a server—no installation is required.
Businesses can thus enjoy all the cost advantages of a centralized deployment and
management model.
• Improved responsiveness to business drivers. The Web 2.0 technology stack
empowers development teams to respond more quickly to changing business needs
and shorten time-to-market for applications. The emergence of “situational
applications” is a direct result of that the web 2.0 technology stack enables users,
including less technical users, to create applications “instantly” as needed.
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 10 12/7/2006
Web 2.0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
Combining the web 2.0 technology stack with SOA and enterprise legacy systems, an
much more agile and cost-effective IT infrastructure emerges. This infrastructure is
sometime being called as “Enterprise 2.0”.
New Possibilities – Social Computing
Web 2.0 not enable brings significant benefits to application development, deployment
and maintenance, but also brings in new possibilities: social computing.
The most visible examples of social computing are blogging and wikis. Blogging enables
normal business users to participate “web content development” without knowing
anything about technology. As a result, it enabled an entire new way of marketing that is
able to reach more people deeper at a much lower costs than ever before. Wikis, on the
other side, enable new ways of collaboration that is previously only possible with
expensive proprietary software.
The emergence of “situational applications” is likely to have an even more profound
impact. By leveraging heterogeneous data and content as well as the collective
intelligence via mashup tools, business users who traditionally have to rely on enterprise
IT teams now have more power at hand than ever.
Summary
Web 2.0 is the next evolution of the web that has a new usage paradigm as well as a new
technology paradigm. The former is characterized by “architecture of participation”
and the latter is characterized by “architecture of partition”.
Web 2.0 is more than a consumer phenomenon. There is a consumer as well as an
enterprise aspect of web 2.0. Consumer Web 2.0 and Enterprise Web 2.0 intersect at
social computing.
Contrary to the common wisdom, Web 2.0 is based on a new technology foundation from
Web 1.0. Though still evolving, the web 2.0 technology stack includes an application
client container, an internet messaging bus and an enterprise mashup server. This
technology stack enables “architecture of partition”, giving developers the capability to
decide the appropriate architecture partition according to application requirements for the
first time in history.
Beyond being a consumer phenomenon, web 2.0 has a significant impact on business
computing by enabling better, faster, richer applications while reducing costs, with
tangible and measurable real ROI.
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 11 12/7/2006
Web 2.0 Re-examined: The Paradigm Shift, Technology Stack and Business Value
References
1. IBM DeveloperWork’s Interview of Sr. Tim Berners-Lee: http://www-
128.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206.html, 8/22/2006;
2. “Web 2.0? It doesn’t exist”, Russell Shaw, http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-
telephony/?p=805, 12/17/2005;
3. “What is Web 2.0”, Tim O’Reilly,
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-
20.html, 9/30/2005;
4. “Web 2.0 Is here”, Dion HinchCliffe, http://web2.wsj2.com/web2ishere.htm,
9/24/2005;
5. “Tim Berners-Lee Comes Under Fire: Is It Time He Let Go of "Web 1.0"?”,
Jeremy Geelan, http://web2.sys-con.com/read/267479.htm, 9/5/2006;
6. “All We Got Was Web 1.0, When Tim Berners-Lee Actually Gave Us Web 2.0”,
Dion HinchCliffe,
http://web2.wsj2.com/all_we_got_was_web_10_when_tim_bernerslee_actually_g
ave_us_w.htm, 9/4/2006;
7. “The "Perfect Storm" of Web 2.0 Disruption”, Jeremy Geelan, http://web2.sys-
con.com/read/267370.htm, 9/7/2006;
8. “The Co-Evolution of SOA and Web 2.0”,Dion HinchCliffe,
http://web2.wsj2.com/continuing_an_industry_discussion_the_coevolution_of_so
a_and.htm, 6/6/2006;
9. “Web 2.0: the State of Confusion?”, Coach Wei,
http://www.coachwei.com/blog/_archives/2006/9/11/2314800.html, 9/11/2006;
10. “Every Organization Should Have A Web 2.0 Story”, Coach Wei,
http://www.coachwei.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/25/2162250.html, 7/25/2006;
11. “Web 2.0 Communication Layer: from HTTP to Comet to Internet Messaging
Bus”, Coach Wei,
http://www.coachwei.com/blog/_archives/2006/10/13/2414519.html, 10/13/2006;
12. “Does every organization need a Web 2.0 strategy?”, Dion HinchCliffe,
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=60, 8/18/2006;
13. “Gartner's 2006 Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle Highlights Key Technology
Themes”, http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=495475, 8/9/2006;
14. “Web 2.0 Summit: IBM evolves vision of SOA and Web 2.0”, Dion HinchCliffe,
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=72, November 2006;
Published from “Direct from Web 2.0” blog (http://www.coachwei.com) Page 12 12/7/2006
