Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
to the evolution of GeoWeb standards (e.g. Keyhole Markup Language [KML] and others such
as WMS, Web Feature Services [WFS] and the Geographic Markup Language [GML] standard),
open-source software was developed such as spatial databases (e.g. PostgreSQL and MySQL) along
with readily available Web mapping platforms (e.g. OpenLayers) and map server (e.g. GeoServer
and MapServer).
Coinciding with the mashup paradigm is the
fourth
generation, that of Digital Earths (or geo-
browsers) such as Google Earth, NASA World Wind and Microsoft Virtual Earth (now Bing Maps)
or ESRI's ArcGIS Explorer which allow for an immersive mapping environment. We turn again to
this paradigm in Section 4.5. However, with respect to the GeoWeb, we propose a fifth paradigm,
that of virtual worlds. Virtual worlds differ from Digital Earths as these do not aim to mirror worlds
but instead intersect the line between real and fantasy - as we will further discuss in Section 4.5.
Recently, Plewe's (2007) paradigms have been revisited by Tsou (2011), who added an additional
paradigm, that of Web maps built on cloud computing, rich Internet applications (RIAs) and crowd-
sourcing, which will be discussed in Section 4.6. While the GeoWeb is constantly evolving, the key
to this remarkable evolution is the end-user experience with respect to geographical information.
We have moved from static to dynamic sites, from simply publishing information to participating
in its creation and from centralised data repositories to distributed ones amongst many servers
(Maguire, 2006). This evolution is tied closely to Web 2.0 frameworks and services which empha-
sise user interactivity and user generation of content (Elwood and Leszczynski, 2011), and it is to
this we now turn.
4.3 RISE OF WEB 2.0
Much of what is now possible with respect to the GeoWeb relates to the growth and evolution of
Web 2.0 technologies. With the rise of Web 2.0 and social computing, we have witnessed a revolu-
tion in the way spatial information is being accessed and utilised (Croitoru and Arazy, 2012). In this
section, we present the defining characteristics of Web 2.0 and its relation to geographical informa-
tion gathering and dissemination. The term Web 2.0 can be traced back to O'Reilly Media in 2004,
who used it to define Web applications that facilitate interactive information sharing, interoperabil-
ity, user-centred design and collaboration on the WWW, utilising technologies of social network-
ing, social topic marking, blogging, Wikis and RSS/XML feeds (Graham, 2007). This is a clear
divergence from Web 1.0, which was built upon a set of static Web pages with hyperlinks con-
necting them. In contrast, Web 2.0 can be defined by six often overlapping concepts: (1) individual
production and user-generated content, (2) harnessing the power of the crowd (e.g. crowdsourcing;
see Howe, 2006), (3) data on a massive scale, (4) participation enabling architectures, (5) ubiquitous
networking and, finally, (6) openness and transparency (see O'Reilly, 2005; Anderson, 2007; and
Batty et al., 2010 for further discussions). Or in O'Reilly's (2006) words,
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. Chief among those
rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them.
(This is what I've elsewhere called “harnessing collective intelligence”.)
Examples of such Web 2.0 applications include MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and
Wikipedia. The growth of Web 2.0 technologies relies heavily on our ability to communicate and
share data and information through simple, freely available tools, in contrast to the static websites
and data repositories of the past. This evolution is analogous to the paradigm shifts in the GeoWeb
as discussed in Section 4.2, in the sense of how we have moved from authoritative static maps to
map mashups from a variety of distributed data sources. The aim of Web 2.0 tools is that they can
be learnt quickly and effectively without immersion in professional activities (see Hudson-Smith
et al., 2009a) such as advanced computer-programming skills. Again this is seen in the evolution of
