Why Web Services?

Component-based programming has become more popular than ever. Hardly an application is built today that does not involve leveraging components in some form, usually from different vendors. As applications have grown more sophisticated, the need to leverage components distributed on remote machines has also grown.

An example of a component-based application is an end-to-end e-commerce solution. An e-commerce application residing on a Web farm needs to submit orders to a back-end Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) application. In many cases, the ERP application resides on different hardware and might run on a different operating system.

The Microsoft Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM), a distributed object infrastructure that allows an application to invoke Component Object Model (COM) components installed on another server, has been ported to a number of non-Windows platforms. But DCOM has never gained wide acceptance on these platforms, so it is rarely used to facilitate communication between Windows and non-Windows computers. ERP software vendors often create components for the Windows platform that communicate with the back-end system via a proprietary protocol.

Some services leveraged by an e-commerce application might not reside within the datacenter at all. For example, if the e-commerce application accepts credit card payment for goods purchased by the customer, it must elicit the services of the merchant bank to process the customer’s credit card information. But for all practical purposes, DCOM and related technologies such as CORBA and Java RMI are limited to applications and components installed within the corporate datacenter. Two primary reasons for this are that by default these technologies leverage proprietary protocols and these protocols are inherently connection oriented.

Clients communicating with the server over the Internet face numerous potential barriers to communicating with the server. Security-conscious network administrators around the world have implemented corporate routers and firewalls to disallow practically every type of communication over the Internet. It often takes an act of God to get a network administrator to open ports beyond the bare minimum.

If you’re lucky enough to get a network administrator to open up the appropriate ports to support your service, chances are your clients will not be as fortunate. As a result, proprietary protocols such those used by DCOM, CORBA, and Java RMI are not practical for Internet scenarios.

The other problem, as I said, with these technologies is that they are inherently connection oriented and therefore cannot handle network interruptions gracefully. Because the Internet is not under your direct control, you cannot make any assumptions about the quality or reliability of the connection. If a network interruption occurs, the next call the client makes to the server might fail.

The connection-oriented nature of these technologies also makes it challenging to build the load-balanced infrastructures necessary to achieve high scalability. Once the connection between the client and the server is severed, you cannot simply route the next request to another server.

Developers have tried to overcome these limitations by leveraging a model called stateless programming, but they have had limited success because the technologies are fairly heavy and make it expensive to reestablish a connection with a remote object.

Because the processing of a customer’s credit card is accomplished by a remote server on the Internet, DCOM is not ideal for facilitating communication between the e-commerce client and the credit card processing server. As in an ERP solution, a third-party component is often installed within the client’s datacenter (in this case, by the credit card processing solution provider). This component serves as little more than a proxy that facilitates communication between the e-commerce software and the merchant bank via a proprietary protocol.

Do you see a pattern here? Because of the limitations of existing technologies in facilitating communication between computer systems, software vendors have often resorted to building their own infrastructure. This means resources that could have been used to add improved functionality to the ERP system or the credit card processing system have instead been devoted to writing proprietary network protocols.

In an effort to better support such Internet scenarios, Microsoft initially adopted the strategy of augmenting its existing technologies, including COM Internet Services (CIS), which allows you to establish a DCOM connection between the client and the remote component over port 80. For various reasons, CIS was not widely accepted.

It became clear that a new approach was needed. So Microsoft decided to address the problem from the bottom up. Let’s look at some of the requirements the solution had to meet in order to succeed.

Interoperability The remote service must be able to be consumed by clients on other platforms.

Internet friendliness The solution should work well for supporting clients that access the remote service from the Internet.

Strongly typed interfaces There should be no ambiguity about the type of data sent to and received from a remote service. Furthermore, datatypes defined by the remote service should map reasonably well to datatypes defined by most procedural programming languages.

Ability to leverage existing Internet standards The implementation of the remote service should leverage existing Internet standards as much as possible and avoid reinventing solutions to problems that have already been solved. A solution built on widely adopted Internet standards can leverage existing toolsets and products created for the technology.

Support for any language The solution should not be tightly coupled to a particular programming language. Java RMI, for example, is tightly coupled to the Java language. It would be difficult to invoke functionality on a remote Java object from Visual Basic or Perl. A client should be able to implement a new Web service or use an existing Web service regardless of the programming language in which the client was written.

Support for any distributed component infrastructure The solution should not be tightly coupled to a particular component infrastructure. In fact, you shouldn’t be required to purchase, install, or maintain a distributed object infrastructure just to build a new remote service or consume an existing service. The underlying protocols should facilitate a base level of communication between existing distributed object infrastructures such as DCOM and CORBA.
Given the title of this book, it should come as no surprise that the solution Microsoft created is known as Web services. A Web service exposes an interface to invoke a particular activity on behalf of the client. A client can access the Web service through the use of Internet standards.

Web Services Building Blocks
The following graphic shows the core building blocks needed to facilitate remote communication between two applications.

Let’s discuss the purpose of each of these building blocks. Because many readers are familiar with DCOM, I will also mention the DCOM equivalent of each building block.

Discovery The client application that needs access to functionality exposed by a Web service needs a way to resolve the location of the remote service. This is accomplished through a process generally termed discovery. Discovery can be facilitated via a centralized directory as well as by more ad hoc methods. In DCOM, the Service Control Manager (SCM) provides discovery services.

Description Once the end point for a particular Web service has been resolved, the client needs sufficient information to properly interact with it. The description of a Web service encompasses structured metadata about the interface that is intended to be consumed by a client application as well as written documentation about the Web service including examples of use. A DCOM component exposes structured metadata about its interfaces via a type library (typelib). The metadata within a component’s typelib is stored in a proprietary binary format and is accessed via a proprietary application programming interface (API).

Message format In order to exchange data, a client and a server have to agree on a common way to encode and format the messages. A standard way of encoding data ensures that data encoded by the client will be properly interpreted by the server. In DCOM, messages sent between a client and a server are formatted as defined by the DCOM Object RPC (ORPC) protocol.
Without a standard way of formatting the messages, developing a toolset to abstract the developer from the underlying protocols is next to impossible. Creating an abstraction layer between the developer and the underlying protocols allows the developer to focus more on the business problem at hand and less on the infrastructure required to implement the solution.

Encoding The data transmitted between the client and the server needs to be encoded into the body of the message. DCOM uses a binary encoding scheme to serialize the data contained by the parameters exchanged between the client and the server.

Transport Once the message has been formatted and the data has been serialized into the body of the message, the message must be transferred between the client and the server over some transport protocol. DCOM supports a number of proprietary protocols bound to a number of network protocols such as TCP, SPX, NetBEUI, and NetBIOS over IPX.
Web Services Design Decisions

Let’s discuss some of the design decisions behind these building blocks for Web services.

Choosing Transport Protocols

The first step was to determine how the client and the server would communicate with each other. The client and the server can reside on the same LAN, but the client might potentially communicate with the server over the Internet. Therefore, the transport protocol must be equally suited to LAN environments and the Internet.

As I mentioned earlier, technologies such as DCOM, CORBA, and Java RMI are ill suited for supporting communication between the client and the server over the Internet. Protocols such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) are proven Internet protocols. HTTP defines a request/response messaging pattern for submitting a request and getting an associated response. SMTP defines a routable messaging protocol for asynchronous communication. Let’s examine why HTTP and SMTP are well suited for the Internet.

HTTP-based Web applications are inherently stateless. They do not rely on a continuous connection between the client and the server. This makes HTTP an ideal protocol for high-availability configurations such as firewalls. If the server that handled the client’s original request becomes unavailable, subsequent requests can be automatically routed to another server without the client knowing or caring.

Almost all companies have an infrastructure in place that supports SMTP. SMTP is well suited for asynchronous communication. If service is disrupted, the e-mail infrastructure automatically handles retries. Unlike with HTTP, you can pass SMTP messages to a local mail server that will attempt to deliver the mail message on your behalf.

The other significant advantage of both HTTP and SMTP is their pervasiveness. Employees have come to rely on both e-mail and their Web browsers, and network administrators have a high comfort level supporting these services. Technologies such as network address translation (NAT) and proxy servers provide a way to access the Internet via HTTP from within otherwise isolated corporate LANs. Administrators will often expose an SMTP server that resides inside the firewall. Messages posted to this server will then be routed to their final destination via the Internet.

In the case of credit card processing software, an immediate response is needed from the merchant bank to determine whether the order should be submitted to the ERP system. HTTP, with its request/response message pattern, is well suited to this task.

Most ERP software packages are not capable of handling large volumes of orders that can potentially be driven from the e-commerce application. In addition, it is not imperative that the orders be submitted to the ERP system in real time. Therefore, SMTP can be leveraged to queue orders so that they can be processed serially by the ERP system.

If the ERP system supports distributed transactions, another option is to leverage Microsoft Message Queue Server (MSMQ). As long as the e-commerce application and the ERP system reside within the same LAN, connectivity via non-Internet protocols is less of an issue. The advantage MSMQ has over SMTP is that messages can be placed and removed from the queue within the scope of a transaction. If an attempt to process a message that was pulled off the queue fails, the message will automatically be placed back in the queue when the transaction aborts.

Choosing an Encoding Scheme

HTTP and SMTP provide a means of sending data between the client and the server. However, neither specifies how the data within the body of the message should be encoded. Microsoft needed a standard, platform-neutral way to encode data exchanged between the client and the server.

Because the goal was to leverage Internet-based protocols, Extensible Markup Language (XML) was the natural choice. XML offers many advantages, including cross-platform support, a common type system, and support for industry -standard character sets.

Binary encoding schemes such as those used by DCOM, CORBA, and Java RMI must address compatibility issues between different hardware platforms. For example, different hardware platforms have different internal binary representation of multi-byte numbers. Intel platforms order the bytes of a multi-byte number using the little endian convention; many RISC processors order the bytes of a multi-byte number using the big endian convention.

XML avoids binary encoding issues because it uses a text-based encoding scheme that leverages standard character sets. Also, some transport protocols, such as SMTP, can contain only text-based messages.

Binary methods of encoding, such as those used by DCOM and CORBA, are cumbersome and require a supporting infrastructure to abstract the developer from the details. XML is much lighter weight and easier to handle because it can be created and consumed using standard text-parsing techniques.

In addition, a variety of XML parsers are available to further simplify the creation and consumption of XML documents on practically every modern platform. XML is lightweight and has excellent tool support, so XML encoding allows incredible reach because practically any client on any platform can communicate with your Web service.

Choosing a Formatting Convention

It is often necessary to include additional metadata with the body of the message. For example, you might want to include information about the type of services that a Web service needs to provide in order to fulfill your request, such as enlisting in a transaction or routing information. XML provides no mechanism for differentiating the body of the message from its associated data.

Transport protocols such as HTTP provide an extensible mechanism for header data, but some data associated with the message might not be specific to the transport protocol. For example, the client might send a message that needs to be routed to multiple destinations, potentially over different transport protocols. If the routing information were placed into an HTTP header, it would have to be translated before being sent to the next intermediary over another transport protocol, such as SMTP. Because the routing information is specific to the message and not the transport protocol, it should be a part of the message.

Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP) provides a protocol-agnostic means of associating header information with the body of the message. Every SOAP message must define an envelope. The envelope has a body that contains the payload of the message and a header that can contain metadata associated with the message.

SOAP imposes no restrictions on how the message body can be formatted. This is a potential concern because without a consistent way of encoding the data, it is difficult to develop a toolset that abstracts you from the underlying protocols. You might have to spend a fair amount of time getting up to speed on the Web service’s interface instead of solving the business problem at hand.

What was needed was a standard way of formatting a remote procedure call (RPC) message and encoding its list of parameters. This is exactly what Section 7 of the SOAP specification provides. It describes a standard naming convention and encoding style for procedure-oriented messages.

Because SOAP provides a standard format for serializing data into an XML message, platforms such as ASP.NET and Remoting can abstract away the details for you.

Choosing Description Mechanisms

SOAP provides a standard way of formatting messages exchanged between the Web service and the client. However, the client needs additional information in order to properly serialize the request and interpret the response. XML Schema provides a means of creating schemas that can be used to describe the contents of a message.

XML Schema provides a core set of built-in datatypes that can be used to describe the contents of a message. You can also create your own datatypes. For example, the merchant bank can create a complex datatype to describe the content and structure of the body of a message used to submit a credit card payment request.

A schema contains a set of datatype and element definitions. A Web service uses the schema not only to communicate the type of data that is expected to be within a message but also to validate incoming and outgoing messages.

A schema alone does not provide enough information to effectively describe a Web service, however. The schema does not describe the message patterns between the client and the server. For example, a client needs to know whether to expect a response when an order is posted to the ERP system. A client also needs to know over what transport protocol the Web service expects to receive requests. Finally, the client needs to know the address where the Web service can be reached.

This information is provided by a Web Services Description Language (WSDL) document. WSDL is an XML document that fully describes a particular Web service. Tools such as ASP.NET WSDL.exe and Remoting SOAPSUDS.exe can consume WSDL and automatically build proxies for the developer.

As with any component used to build software, a Web service should also be accompanied by written documentation for developers who program against the Web service. The documentation should describe what the Web service does, the interfaces it exposes, and some examples of how to use it. Good documentation is especially important if the Web service is exposed to clients over the Internet.

Choosing Discovery Mechanisms

Once you’ve developed and documented a Web service, how can potential clients locate it? If the Web service is designed to be consumed by a member of your development team, your approach can be pretty informal, such as sharing the URL of the WSDL document with your peer a couple of cubicles down. But when potential clients are on the Internet, advertising your Web service effectively is an entirely different story.

What’s needed is a common way to advertise Web services. Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration (UDDI) provides just such a mechanism. UDDI is an industry-standard centralized directory service that can be used to advertise and locate Web services. UDDI allows users to search for Web services using a host of search criteria, including company name, category, and type of Web service.

Web services can also be advertised via DISCO, a proprietary XML document format defined by Microsoft that allows Web sites to advertise the services they expose. DISCO defines a simple protocol for facilitating a hyperlink style for locating resources. The primary consumer of DISCO is Microsoft Visual Studio.NET. A developer can target a particular Web server and navigate through the various Web services exposed by the server.

What’s Missing from Web Services?

You might have noticed that some key items found within a distributed component infrastructure are not defined by Web services. Two of the more noticeable omissions are a well-defined API for creating and consuming Web services and a set of component services, such as support for distributed transactions. Let’s discuss each of these missing pieces.

Web service -specific API Most distributed component infrastructures define an API to perform such tasks as initializing the runtime, creating an instance of a component, and reflecting the metadata used to describe the component. Because most high-level programming languages provide some degree of interoperability with C, the API is usually exposed as a flat set of C method signatures. RMI goes so far as to tightly couple its API with a single high-level language, Java.
In an effort to ensure that Web services are programming language-agnostic, Microsoft has left it up to individual software vendors to bind support for Web services to a particular platform. I will discuss two Web service implementations for the.NET platform, ASP.NET and Remoting, later in the book.

Component services The Web services platform does not provide many of the services commonly found in distributed component infrastructures, such as remote object lifetime management, object pooling, and support for distributed transactions. These services are left up to the distributed component infrastructure to implement.
Some services, such as support for distributed transactions, can be introduced later as the technology matures. Others, such as object pooling and possibly object lifetime management, can be considered an implementation detail of the platform. For example, Remoting defines extensions to provide support for object lifetime management, and Microsoft Component Services provides support for object pooling.


Component-based programming has proven to be a boon to developer productivity, but some services cannot be encapsulated by a component that resides within the client’s datacenter. Legacy technologies such as DCOM, CORBA, and Java RMI are ill-suited to allowing clients to access services over the Internet, so Microsoft found it necessary to start from the bottom and build an industry-standard way of accessing remote services.

Web services is an umbrella term that describes a collection of industry- standard protocols and services used to facilitate a base-line level of interoperability between applications. The industry support that Web services has received is unprecedented. Never before have so many leading technology companies stepped up to support a standard that facilitates interoperability between applications, regardless of the platform on which they are run.

One of the contributing factors to the success of Web services is that they’re built on existing Internet standards such as XML and HTTP. As a result, any system capable of parsing text and communicating via a standard Internet transport protocol can communicate with a Web service. Companies can also leverage the investment they have already made in these technologies.

In case you're interested in knowing more info on mags, stop by http://ozzytyres.com.au
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Why Web Services?

Designers Don’t Build A Web Business Part 1

Who makes your business?
Does the builder of your office make your business work? Does the sign company make your business work? We would never suggest that any business is successful except for the efforts of the owner/entrepreneur, but when it comes to web sites we think differently.

Why would we think that a web designer will build us an online business? Just because they say they will make your site stand out in a crowd? Just because they say they will drive traffic to your web site?


Maybe we believe the marketing hype because we want to, and we want to because we don’t have the technical know-how to make our own web site. Well, we don’t have the building skills to construct our own office either and that never stopped us from building our business.

The lack of technical know-how is no reason to hand over control to a web designer who knows nothing about our business or the market we serve. In fact it is downright dangerous and costly to follow a web designers ideas about building a web business.

What does a web designer know?
A web designer, having graduated from a college course in web design, knows how to build a web site. They do not know how to build a business. And this is where most of us get off track. We think that once the web site is designed then we are in business.

Compare this to buying an automotive repair shop with the hydraulic lifts and compressor, the work bench and office, and we would call this a working auto repair shop – but it is not an auto repair business until WE make it so.

We accept the recommendations of web designers and web marketing people and then believe that that is all there is to running a web business. The experts sold us a working web site, not a working web business. In fact, they didn’t sell us much of anything at all.

A custom web design in the digital virtual reality is something of a laugh because nobody starts from scratch, at least not for us small business guys. And that is not going to change, but maybe we will realize when we are paying too much for recycled ideas and copied code.

You are the business
After our web design has been built the biggest part of making it a business is yet to come. After the web experts have been paid all we have is a shell, just like the auto repair shop. Everything works and functions just fine, but there’s still no business for our new web site.

Unfortunately, if we had listened to the web designers we would have filled our web pages with filler and not real content. Filler is just a bunch of talk about our products or services and what a great business we are and why everyone should buy from us.

Who really believes what a company says about itself? Why would anyone, even in the market, care about filler that is very suspect?

We have been tricked
While we have been following the logic of web designers we have missed the shear genius of our own information. We have been tricked into thinking only about ourselves instead of thinking about our market. And it is not just the web industry that tricked us this way – it is old school offline marketing & advertising that tricked us first.

Putting the focus on our market is both the heart and brains of a business web site. We must first put our knowledge and experience for solving problems into the business and then we must talk to our web market as though we know them by name. And we do know them by name when we address them as a group of like minded people.

Standing apart
If we were to put our clients first and speak to them about their problems and how we can help to solve those problems then we would be one of the first small business web sites to do so. Our web content would be very different from any of our competitors. Our keywords would be more specific to the problems we solve. We would be giving our market what they really want and our web marketing costs would drop like a stone.

If we were to ignore all the experts in the web industry and paid full attention to our market there would be a big shift in how we did business. This much is pretty obvious and it’s hard for us to deny the value of communicating directly to our market with what they want to know. But, it’s hard not to shake with a little fear about wandering away from the comfort of doing what everyone else is doing.

2 Considerations
#1) If our web designer didn’t build us a web business, then they haven’t build anyone else a web business. What this means is that by being true to our business we have no competition.

#2) The risk in financial costs of attracting our real web market is tiny and the time it takes to build this into a business is less than the time we have already spent spinning our wheels and listening to others.

To make a web business happen we need to be engaged with our market and not expect anyone else to make it happen for us. We can look for help and learn from others, but if we expect designers to build our web business for us it will just another cookie cutter web site as they do what they have been trained to do.

To take control of our web business we need to know what our web market wants and what they need from us. This is not so difficult to do. To understand any web market, and our market specifically, you can find insights in the article in this series titled “Designers Don’t Build A Web Business Part 2”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Designers Don’t Build A Web Business Part 1

In 2014, the World Wide Web Will Be 25 Years Old

It’s only in 1989 that Tim Berners Lee wrote the first proposal for the World Wide Web, which was proposing a radically different way of sharing information on a global scale, built on the existing infrastructure of the internet.

And in that very short time, we’ve gone from nothing to 2 and 1/2 billion users and over 600 million Web pages. And both of those statistics is changing, going up all the time. We’ve built the largest information infrastructure in human history in just that short space of time. In this lecture, what I’d like to consider is two questions about that. The first one is, how on Earth did we get from there to here?

And very briefly, where exactly is here that we are at the moment? We’ve got some clues already from the previous lecture. So we know that the Web had a history. It didn’t come from nowhere. The Web was linked to technologies that existed before 1989.

The internet, of course, was really important–microchips, the personal computer, file transfer protocols. And it was also linked to much broader technologies that were shaping our modern world –mass production, electricity, the cables that provided the internet. But as well as technological innovations that enabled us to develop the Web, it’s important to recognize that it was linked to a cultural history. As we’ve heard in the previous lecture, it wasn’t the first way of thinking about a global information infrastructure.

And indeed, if you read science fiction at all, go and have a look at William Gibson’s book Neuromancer, was written in 1981. And you’ll find it almost impossible to imagine that that book was written before the Web existed, because there it is, in 1981, in this book. The Web also had a history that was tied in with economics and with social change. So we need to think about the postwar economic boom.

We need to think about electronics. We need to think about the Cold War. We also need to think about mass higher education and the way in which science was funded in the postwar period. So the Web had a history–a technological, a social, an economic, and a political history in terms of where it came from. In 1989, Tim Berners-Lee made a very specific proposal to use HTTP, HTML, and URLs or URIs to share information and to navigate information on a global scale.

At the very beginning, or so the story goes, Tim Berners-Lee kept a notebook, in which he decided he would write down every time a new Website appeared on the internet. And he got to 20 and decided that perhaps he would stop doing it, because it was getting a bit difficult to keep up with it all. You imagine the notebook he’d need now–over 600 million Websites and counting, 2 and 1/2 billion people and counting.

And you know what? The main uses of the Web are not physicists. So how did we get from there to here? A popular way of understanding science and understanding technical innovation is to imagine that innovations take off because they’re very clever and because they’re designed to achieve certain outcomes. So one answer to that question, how do we get from there to here, would be to say, well, it was designed to do that, and it’s a really clever technology.

I’m afraid I think that the answer to that is, no, that’s not how we got from there to here. And there’s three different things I’d like you to think about, which underline my reason for saying no. The first one is that technology on its own is not enough. However clever, however innovative something is, technologies don’t happen on their own. They happen because people use them.

And people use them or don’t use them depending on the circumstances of their lives, depending on their motivations, depending on all kinds of social and economic factors. So the World Wide Web is a really obvious point. It needs to be able to read and write. If we don’t have maths literacy, no one’s going to use the Web, or at least not on the scale that we’re used to.

We need disposable incomes. If people can’t pay for access to the internet, they can’t buy computers, they’re not going to use the World Wide Web. Slightly more complicated, this, but it needed a range of use values. So if all you could do on the Web was share physics datasets, not very many people would be using it. All the physicists might be, but nobody else would be using it. And it also needed an open model. If the Web had been copyrighted, if we have to pay every time we wanted to use it, would it looks like it looks today? I really don’t think that it would. And those of you who watched the opening ceremony of the Olympics last year in 2012 might remember Tim Berners-Lee being present to that ceremony with a message flashing around the Olympic Stadium in London, saying, this is for everyone.

And that has been a really important decision, I would say almost as important as the technologies themselves, in shaping how we got from there to here. So that’s the first reason. The second reason why we can’t just say that this was inevitable outcome of the technology that was developed is because the Web we have now, even in technical terms, is not the Web we had in 1989.

In 1989, or 1990, I suppose, to be more accurate, you could put static Web pages up–text, no visuals. And the only people really who could put Websites up were those who had quite high-level technical skills to be able to do that. All of that changed as we moved into a second generation of the Web, what people have called Web 2.0, where it started to look much nicer. You could have visuals, you could have dynamic Web pages.

All of it became much fancier, much more interesting and engaging. But also really importantly, Web 2.0 is used to describe a phase of the Web where user-generated content became possible. So it wasn’t just a relatively small number of people with high technical skills who could put information on the Web. All of us–you, me, anybody with access to the Web could put their information out there, whether it’s on Facebook or Twitter or whether we’re blogging, a whole range of ways in which people can share information, share their photographs, share their life histories, sell their products, be on eBay, whatever it is, user-generated content is driving the Web or has driven the Web to a large extent in terms of that growth in the recent period. It’s not stopping there. People now are talking about Web 3.0. And that’s something we’ll talk about later on it. But that is going to change again how the Web is and how we’re using it. The third reason why we can’t simply say, oh, the Web grew because it was a great technology, is because we’ve had to work very, very hard to make the Web what it is today.

Some of you will have heard of an organisation called W3C, the World Wide Web Consortium. The World Wide Web Consortium is an organisation that develops protocols and guidelines to ensure the stability of the Web and the continued growth of the Web. It’s an organisation that brings together governments, businesses, academics, a whole range of people who negotiate long and hard over how to enable the Web to continue to function in a stable,reliable, and sustainable kind of way. And it’s really important to know that at W3C, there’s two underpinning values. One is, the Web is for everyone. And two is, the second is, the Web is for everything. It has to be possible to use the Web on any kind of device, not on one that’s produced by one company or another company or a particular kind of device, but on any kind of device.

And again, you can imagine if that hadn’t been the case, the Web might look very different today to how it does. W3C isn’t the only organisation that’s doing all that hard work to try and hold the Web together. But it’s a very powerful organisation, and it has as its vision–I think it’s important to say this–a commitment to participation, knowledge sharing, and trust. And that’s not easy. That’s really, really hard work–the effort, the energy, that it takes to hold the Web together.

So we’ve gone from physicists sharing data to eBay, Twitter, through all of those mechanisms I’ve just described. And the Web, what it is and what it’s become, is really, really complicated. And that’s why we need Web science to help us to understand it.

The Web has changed the world to be sure, but the world has also changed the Web over that period of the last 25 years. People have taken it, they’ve used it, they’ve transformed it, and all kinds of unexpected things have happened. And we really don’t know what’s going to happen next. Where are we at the moment? The last question I want to consider–where are we now? Two and a half billion users is amazing. But we’re heading for 7 and 1/2 billion people in the wild.

Most people in the world don’t use the Web. What’s going to happen when more people start using the Web? What are the consequences of the fact that most people are excluded or not included at least from the Web? Many of those people are in countries outside of the West, but it’s estimated that 15 million people in the UK have never used the Web. So we have to be really careful when we talk about the Web and we say its changed all our lives and we all use the Web, because we don’t.

And we need to think very carefully about the consequences of that. Where we are now is also not guaranteed. The Web that we have now is not inevitable. The work that I’ve described to hold it together, the things that make the Web what it is today are not guaranteed. And we need to be very careful to consider if and how we want to keep the Web that we have now the way this it is now and what might happen if changes are allowed, changes for example in the way that government’s access our data in terms of questions about privacy, governance of the Web, corporate ownership of parts of the Web, and so on.

The Web that we have now is not guaranteed. Lastly, the Web will not stand still. The Web is going to change. There’s no doubt about that. I think all that effort couldn’t hold it still if we wanted it to. So we all need to take responsibility for the Web for understanding where it is, where it might go in the future, and our part in that. And those are the challenges that Web Science faces.

Ashish works as a Writer for leading Custom Web Application and Mobile Apps Development Company Zaptech Solutions, offering professional Copy writing Services for a range of clients. He has worked at Zaptech Solutions since Fab. 2010 with a concentration in search engine marketing (SEM) and display advertising. Ashish’s worked with a variety of clients across various industries including education, healthcare, e-commerce marketing, and Web design & development.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on In 2014, the World Wide Web Will Be 25 Years Old

Should We Let Our Web Designer Off The Hook?

Misleading web marketing hype lacks professional integrity

Keep one thing in mind, the marketing hype about driving web traffic to your site simply reveals the lack of understanding in how the web works. Keywords are all about attraction and search engines pull relevant web sites to the top spots. The process of gaining traffic is based on attraction. There is no known means of driving web users to your web site or any other web site.

“Making your web site stand out in a crowd” is another myth, or “Your competitor’s web site is stealing your customers” is just more misleading sales hype. And what is worse is that many web designers believe in their own sales hype. But that’s not all.

Web professionals perpetuate a number of falsehoods about the web and it makes me wonder why they keep the truth hidden? Do they not understand the nature of the web, or can they make more money selling a dream than selling a reality?

People love the idea of overnight success and when they are told this is possible it is a hard thing to resist. Sales hype like “I will drive traffic to your site, make your site stand out in a crowd and you can sell your products to the world!” is exactly what we all want to hear.

An honest web designer would tell you that overnight success can only be achieved with the deepest of pockets for massive advertising campaigns. However, the alternative web marketing method is low cost long term goals that build tangible results that are as natural as the seasons where planting seeds leads to the inevitable harvest.

Yuk, we want instant
We want to sell to the world and have tons of traffic buying products off the shelf like there was no tomorrow. But what we get with that fairytale is quite the opposite of what we were told. After a few failures at overnight success schemes we realize that had we chosen a long term goal we would be getting somewhere by now.

Our biggest problem is finding a web designer that knows about low cost pull marketing and is willing to design our site for such a purpose.

Design over marketing

Web designers are artists. They are not business people and they know nothing about your business. Even when you are asked to provide a description of your web market – like, isn’t that the question you want to ask them? – they promptly forget what you said and dive into creating a masterpiece you are going to love. And you will love it.

Your market, on the other hand, won’t be impressed as they really don’t care what your web site looks like as they are more concerned about what your web site can do for them.

You’ve paid for a web design that pleases you. BUT, does it work to be of service to your market? Well… probably not. Does it support your market? Does it help educate your market? Does it build trust and form relationships with your market? Oh well, but the home page sure looks good to you.

King Kong headers

They’re everywhere and every web designer loves them. So what if it takes up all of the prime screen real estate, your web designer tells you it’s the latest thing. So much for making your web site stand out in a crowd!

A King Kong web header is mostly meaningless. It takes up an enormous amount of prime screen real estate but does almost nothing. When these King Kong headers are repeated on every page your web site is being robbed of prime marketing space over and over again. Just the fact that the header on every page is repeated means that it doesn’t have to be big at all.

Think about the terrific marketing that could use that space. Imagine calling out to your web marketing and naming their biggest problem. Isn’t that the headline news you would be better off with on your home page?

If it’s all about branding then the King Kong header is not doing you any favours. A big city skyscraper is probably not your company image, but it may reflect your dreams. Would you pay for that image on a billboard or a newspaper ad?

Image sliders

This is pretty much the same issue as the King Kong header. A lot of branding and marketing space given up for repeated images that get old really fast. If the image slider doesn’t have a specific marketing function then it is just robbing space.

Small font size

You spent a lot of time writing the best content for your market and the clever web designer sees all this text as ruining the artistic elements on the page. The solution is to make your best marketing information small and unreadable. You might think that the designer’s real motive was to make the text blend in with all the artistic elements but you would be wrong.

Web designers destroy your marketing content because it competes for attention with their idea of a beautiful business web site. Doing business? Well, art is not business and a web designer is all about art. I know – been there done that.

Faded font – low contrast

This is a variation on how to destroy web marketing by making the text unreadable with yet another trick. You will be told that the faded text removes the jarring contrast and makes the web page more aesthetic and pleasing to the eye. Unless, of course, you want to read it.

Marketing and branding are once again under attack and the clever argument is that your web site has a great first impression, as though this will be how your market is won over. It’s all nonsense to suggest that a first visual impression attracts your market and it isn’t the truth or the real intention of a web designer. They just don’t want to take a backseat to the real marketing material. It’s that simple.

Even if a web designer won’t admit that they sabotage your marketing for the sake of design this is still the end result. We need to see through their arguments and protests because it was always their intent to have their artwork come first. After all, it is not your contribution to your own business web site that is going to muscle in on getting all the attention.

Thin content

You will be advised that less text is better. You know, just a few words about the product and description along with a price – that’s good enough. Stop there. This leaves plenty of room for BUY NOW buttons and the all important “Call to action” on every page. This would be a web designer’s contribution to web marketing.

Search engines look for quality and quantity when it comes to web content, and what search engines call ‘content’ is written text. It’s rather interesting that this is exactly what your market wants from your web site also.

Who do you think might be right – Your designer or your market?

Do you really want to let your web designer off the hook for not providing you with a web design you can go to market with?

Honestly though, your business web design looks terrific – just don’t expect it to help with your marketing

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Should We Let Our Web Designer Off The Hook?

The Evolution of Word Wide Web – WWW


World Wide Web (WWW) is the system of interlinked hypertext documents containing text, images, audio, videos, animation and more. User can view and navigate through these documents using hyperlinks or navigation elements which have references to another document or to the section of the same document. In a broader sense “The World Wide Web is the universe of network-accessible information, an embodiment of human knowledge.”

History of World Wide Web

WWW was first proposed in 1990 by Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau while working at the CERN, the European Council for Nuclear Research. Both of them came out with their individual proposal for Hypertext systems and later on they united and offered joint proposal. The term “Word Wide Web” was first introduced in that joint proposal. The history of every invention has lot of pre-history. Similarly the World Wide Web has also lot of pre-historical gradual development of hypertext system and internet protocols which made the WWW possible. The gradual development started in the early 1945, with the development of Memex, a device based on microfilms for storing huge amount of documents and facilitating organizing those documents. Later in 1968 “Hypertext” was introduced, which made linking and organization of documents fairly easy. In 1972 DARPA (Defense Advance Research Project Agency), started project that connect all research centers to facilitate data exchange which later adopted for military information exchange. In 1979 SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) was invented to enable sharing of documents for large government project by separating content from the presentation and thereby enabling same document to be rendered in different ways. In 1989 Tim Berners-lee came out with Networked Hypertext system form CERN Laboratory. In 1990, joint proposal for hyper text system was presented and the term “World Wide Web” first introduced. In 1992 first portable browser was released by CERN, and that had picked up industry interest in internet development. Today web is so much popularized and has grown to be so invaded in to our lives; it becomes almost impossible to imagine the World without web.

Web Evolution – What and How?

Each technology has certain distinguished characteristics and features. Similarly web has certain features such as data, services, mess-up, APIs, social platform and more. These features are continuously and progressively evolving in distinct stages with qualitative improvements over the existing. Web evolution is categorized and hyped with some fancy marketing terms like “Web 1.0”, “Web 2.0”, “Social Web”, “Web 3.0”, “Pragmatic Semantic Web”, “Pragmatic Web” and many more.

Yihong Ding, PHD candidate at Brigham Young University, in his article on “Evolution of Web” explained the development of Web by analogically comparing it with the human growth. Yihong Ding stated “The relationship between web pages and their webmasters is similar to the relationship between children and their parents. As well as parents raise their children, webmasters maintain and update their web pages. Human children have their normal stages of development, such as the newborn stage, pre-school stage, elementary-school stage, teenage stage, and so on. Analogically, web has its generations, such as Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and so on.”

Along with technological advancement web design also changed over the period of time. Initial design was simple hypertext read only system which allowed users to read the information. User was just a viewer of what is presented on the web. Gradually images and tables added with evolution of HTML and web browsers, which allowed making better design. Development of photo-editing tools, web authoring tools and content management tools enabled designer to begin creating visually appealing website design layouts. In the next phase of development, web design changed with the change in usability and the focus is diverted on the users rather than the content of the website. User interaction and social touch is applied to the web design. Now user is not just a viewer. User can drive the web with feedback, information sharing, rating and personalization. Gradually we got the mature blend of function, form, content and interaction, called Read/Write Web. Continuing this evolution, meaning is added to the information presented on the web so that online virtual representatives of human can able to read and interprets the presented information. This kind of web where user agent imitating human behavior, can read and understand the information using artificial intelligence is called semantic web.

Web 1. 0 (Read Only Web)

World Wide Web is evolved in stages. First stage was the basic “Read Only” hypertext system also termed as Web 1.0 since the hype of Web 2.0. In fact in the original proposed web model, Tim Berners-Lee envisioned web as the Read/Write Model with HTTP PUT and HTTP DELETE method. These methods were almost never used just because of security reasons.

Some of the Characteristics of Web 1.0

1. In Web 1.0 web master is constantly engaged with responsibility of managing the content and keeps user updating. Majority of hyperlinks to the contents are manually assigned by the web master.

2. Web 1.0 does not support mass-publishing. The content on the website is published by the web master and thereby does not leverage the collective intelligence of users.

3. Web 1.0 uses basic hyper text mark up language for publishing content on the internet.

4. Web 1.0 pages do not support machine readable content. Only human who are web readers can understand the content.

5. Web 1.0 provides contact information (email, phone number, fax or address) for communication. Users have to use the off-line world for further communication with this contact information.

6. In Web 1.0, web pages are designed to react instinctively based on the programmed condition. Specific result or response is generated when the programmed condition is satisfied. Web 1.0 model does not understand remote request and can not prepare response for potential request in advance. To clearly understand above characteristics of web 1.0, Yihong Ding in his article on “Evolution of World Wide Web” has analogically correlated World of Web 1.0 with the world of a Newborn baby.

Newborn Baby : I have parents

Web-1.0 Page : Webmasters

Newborn Baby : Watch me, but I won’t explain

Web-1.0 Page : Humans understand, machines don’t

Newborn Baby : Talk to my parents if you want to discuss about me

Web-1.0 Page : Contact information (email, phone number, fax, address, …)

Newborn Baby : My parents decide who my friends are. Actually, I don’t care

Web-1.0 Page : Manually specified web links

Newborn Baby : Hug me, I smile; hit me, I cry (conditional reflex)

Web-1.0 Page : Reactive functions on web pages

Source: Analogy from the Article by Yihong Ding from http://www.deg.byu.edu/ding/WebEvolution/evolution-review.html#w1:1 “The web 1.0 pages are only babies.

Web 2. 0 (Read Write Web)

“Web 2.0 is the understanding that the network is the platform and on the network is platform roles for the business is different. And the cardinal role is user adds value. And figuring out how to built database and things to get better so that more people use that and it’s the secret of web 2.0.

Web 2.0 is the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform.”[4]

In Web 2.0 the idea of Consumer (Users) and Producer (Web Master) is dissolving. Web 2.o is more about communications and user interactions. Web 2.0 is all about participation. “Content is the King” often cited quote during early web 1.0 days, is now turned in to “User is the King” in Web 2.0. In web 2.0 users communicates through blogging, wikis and social networking websites. Everything on the web is tagged, to facilitate easy and quick navigation. Web 2.0 is also about combining it all in one single page by means of tagging and AJAX with better usability via lots of white space, and a cleaner layout. The API ability makes it possible for programmers to mash up data feeds and databases to cross reference information from multiple sources in one page. In contrast with web 1.0, web 2.0 has collective intelligence of millions of users.

Web 2.0 is all about improved version of World Wide Web with changing role and evolving business model where users learned to communicate with the other users instead of just communicating with the publisher of the content.

Some of the Characteristics of Web 2.0

1. Web 2.0 is the second version of Web providing RIA (Rich Internet Application) by bringing in the desktop experience such as “Drag and Drop” on the webpage in browser.

2. SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) is the key piece in Web 2.0. Buzzwords around SOA are Feeds, RSS, web services and mash up, which defines how Web 2.0 application exposes functionality so that other applications can leverage and integrate those functionalities providing much richer set of applications.

3. Web 2.0 is the Social web. Web 2.0 Application tends to interact much more with the end user. End users are not only the users of the application but also the participants whether by tagging the content, whether he is contributing to the wiki or doing podcast for blogging. Due to the Social nature of application end user is the interval part of the data for the application, proving feedbacks and allowing application to leverage that user going to use it.

4. In Web 2.0 philosophy and strategy is that “The Web is open”. Content is available to be moved and changed by any user. Web site content is not controlled by the people who made the web site but by the user who are using the web site.

5. In Web 2.0 Data is the driving force. Users are spending much more time online and started generating content in their passive time. Web 2.0 requires some of the key technologies to be used in the development of web pages. One of the important technologies is the AJAX which supports development of rich user experience.

6. Web 2.0 websites typically include some of the following key technologies.

– RSS (Really Simple Syndication), which allows users to syndicate, aggregate and to set up the notification of the data using feeds.

– Mashups, which makes it possible to merge the content from different sources, allowing new form of reusing of the information via public interface or APIs.

– Wikis and Forums to support user generated content.

– Tagging, which allows users to specify and attach human readable keyword to web resource.

– AJAX – Asynchronous Java Script and XML, which is the web development technique, allowing exchange of interactive data behind the scene without reloading the web page.

To clearly understand above characteristics of web 2.0, Yihong Ding in his article on “Evolution of World Wide Web” has analogically correlated World of Web 2.0 with the world of a Pre-School Kid.

Pre-School Kid : I have parents

Web-2.0 Page : Webmasters (blog owners)

Pre-School Kid : Parents teach me knowledge (though often not well organized)

Web-2.0 Page : Tagging

Pre-School Kid : I understand but maybe imprecise and incorrect

Web-2.0 Page : Folksonomy

Pre-School Kid : I can deliver and distribute messages, especially for my parents

Web-2.0 Page : Blogging technology

Pre-School Kid : Who my friends are is primarily determined by my parents’ social activities and their teaching

Web-2.0 Page : Social network

Pre-School Kid : Multiple of us can be coordinated to do something beyond individual’s capabilities

Web-2.0 Page : Web widget, mashup

Pre-School Kid : I can do suggestion based on my communication with friends

Web-2.0 Page : Collective intelligence

Following table distinguish the difference between Web 1.0 and Web 2.0

Web 1.0 is about : Reading

Web 2.0 is about : Reading /Writing

Web 1.0 is about : Publishing

Web 2.0 is about : Feedbacks, Reviews, Personalization

Web 1.0 is about : Linking Content using Hyperlinks

Web 2.0 is about : mashup

Web 1.0 is about : Companies

Web 2.0 is about : CommunityCommunity

Web 1.0 is about : Client-Server

Web 2.0 is about : Peer to Peer

Web 1.0 is about : HTML

Web 2.0 is about : XML

Web 1.0 is about : Home Pages

Web 2.0 is about : Blogs and Wikis

Web 1.0 is about : Portals

Web 2.0 is about : RSS

Web 1.0 is about : Taxonomy

Web 2.0 is about : Tags

Web 1.0 is about : Owning

Web 2.0 is about : Sharing

Web 1.0 is about : Web form

Web 2.0 is about : Web Application

Web 1.0 is about : Hardware Cost

Web 2.0 is about : Bandwidth Cost

Web 3. 0 (Semantic Web)

Web is no longer linking and tagging of information and resources. With the advent of semantic web concept, special information is attached to the resources or information so that machine can understand and read just like human.

Timer Berner Lee envisioned

“I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers. A ‘Semantic Web’, which should make this possible, has yet to emerge, but when it does, the day-to-day mechanisms of trade, bureaucracy and our daily lives will be handled by machines talking to machines. The ‘intelligent agents’ people have touted for ages will finally materialize.”

Semantic Web has derived from his vision of web as the universal medium for exchange of data, information and knowledge. Web 3.0 or Semantic Web is an Executable Phase of Web Development where dynamic applications provides interactive services and facilitates machine to machine interaction. Tim Berner Lee has further stated

“People keep asking what Web 3.0 is. I think maybe when you’ve got an overlay of scalable vector graphics – everything rippling and folding and looking misty – on Web 2.0 and access to a semantic Web integrated across a huge space of data, you’ll have access to an unbelievable data resource.” Semantic web is the an extension of World Wide Web in which web content is expressed in machine readable language, not just in nature language, so that user agents can read, process and understand the content using artificial intelligence imitating human behavior. In other words Semantic Web is an extension of the web where content expressed can be processed independently by intelligent software agents.

There can be several agents one can program within the context of vocabulary of the vertical domain.

For example

“Travel Agent”, who keep searching chipset air tickets based on your criteria and notify you when it gets the perfect one.

“Personal Shopper Agent”, who keeps looking for the specific product on the eBay and get it for you once it finds the one that match with all of your criterions.

Similarly we can have “Real Estate Agent”, “Personal Financial Advisor Agent” and many more.

All user is doing is just creating their personal agent which talks with the web services which are exposed publicly and there by taking care of lots of repetitive tasks.

Precisely Web 3.0 = Every human + Every device + Every Information

Characteristics of Semantic Web

1. Unlike database driven websites, In Semantic Web database is not centralized.

2. Semantic Web is the Open System where schema is not fixed as it may take any arbitrary source of data.

3. Semantic Web requires using Meta description languages such as Web Ontology Language and the Resource Description Framework (RDF). Annotation requires lot of time and effort.

Web n.0 – a Glimpse of the Future

Let me add one more element to the previous formula

Web 3.0 = Every human + Every device + Every Information = Everything in the context of current technology advancement.

Web 3.0 is still evolving and it is going to encompass everything. One can not envision anything beyond web 3.0 in the current technology advancement.

Breaking all current technological capabilities Raymond Kurzweil, the inventor of OCR (Optical Character Reader) envisioned Web 4.0 as the Web OS with intelligent user agents acting parallel to human brain. Following figure illustrate the evolution of Web along with technology advancement and the semantics of social connections. Source: Nova Spivack and Radar Networks


The evolution of web has gone through phases as mentioned in this article and that has introduced numerous technologies and concepts in various areas; software, communication, hardware, marketing, advertising, content sharing, publicity, finance and many more.

In a way the World Wide Web has changed the way people were used to look at things earlier. I believe this evolution is never ending and moving towards excellence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Evolution of Word Wide Web – WWW