But what was it that made us identify one application or approach as "Web 1.0" and another as "Web 2.0"? (The question is particularly urgent because the Web 2.0 meme has become so widespread that companies are now pasting it on as a marketing buzzword, with no real understanding of just what it means. In our initial brainstorming, we formulated our sense of Web 2.0 by example: Web 1.0 This article is an attempt to clarify just what we mean by Web 2.0. But there's still a huge amount of disagreement about just what Web 2.0 means, with some people decrying it as a meaningless marketing buzzword, and others accepting it as the new conventional wisdom. In the year and a half since, the term "Web 2.0" has clearly taken hold, with more than 9.5 million citations in Google. Could it be that the dot-com collapse marked some kind of turning point for the web, such that a call to action such as "Web 2.0" might make sense? We agreed that it did, and so the Web 2.0 Conference was born. What's more, the companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have some things in common. Dale Dougherty, web pioneer and O'Reilly VP, noted that far from having "crashed", the web was more important than ever, with exciting new applications and sites popping up with surprising regularity. The concept of "Web 2.0" began with a conference brainstorming session between O'Reilly and MediaLive International. The pretenders are given the bum's rush, the real success stories show their strength, and there begins to be an understanding of what separates one from the other. Shakeouts typically mark the point at which an ascendant technology is ready to take its place at center stage. Many people concluded that the web was overhyped, when in fact bubbles and consequent shakeouts appear to be a common feature of all technological revolutions. The bursting of the dot-com bubble in the fall of 2001 marked a turning point for the web. 2009: Tim O'Reilly and John Battelle answer the question of "What's next for Web 2.0?" in Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On. Note that a related corpus, Janes-Norm is also available, cf.Įrjavec, Tomaž Fišer, Darja Čibej, Jaka Arhar Holdt, Špela Ljubešić, Nikola Zupan, KatjaĬreative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.Oct. In Proceedings of RASLAN 2016: Recent Advances in Slavonic Natural Language Processing. Gold-standard datasets for annotation of Slovene computer-mediated communication. As an update to version 1.2, 2.0 corrects some minor errors and includes named entity annotation.Ī slightly older version of this corpus is described in:ĮRJAVEC, Tomaž, ČIBEJ, Jaka, ARHAR HOLDT, Špela, LJUBEŠIĆ, Nikola, FIŠER, Darja. As the corpus has been carefully manually annotated, it is also suitable for detailed linguistic explorations which require highly accurate and reliable annotations. It is meant as a gold-standard training and testing dataset for tokenisation, sentence segmentation, word normalisation, morphosyntactic tagging, lemmatisation and named entity annotation of non-standard Slovene. Janes-Tag is a manually annotated corpus of Slovene Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |