Infrastructures and Architectures
post the .com hype and crash
Alexander Voss
National Centre for e-Social Science
alex.voss@ncess.ac.uk
www.ncess.ac.uk
25th Sept., 2006
The .com Bubble



Ca. 1997-2001
Emergence of the Web
Applications mainly around
– Simple, one-way content delivery models
– Company presentation and advertising
– Customer relationship management


New, unconventional business models emerging
Sector awash with money for:
– Internet and network infrastructure (e.g. Worldcom)
– Internet tools (e.g. Netscape)
– Consumer websites and portals (e.g. Yahoo)


Only few business models turned out to be successful, leading
to the ‘.com bubble burst’ ca. 2001
A healthy ‘shake-out’ for the industry?
25th Sept., 2006
What’s different today?





Growth of the Web/Internet has continued…
Technologies have matured, interoperability increased
But, crucially, the Web has started to become a platform for
more sophisticated applications
Much wider range of uses, partially replacing desktop
functionality and emphasising collaborative aspects of
computing
Enabled by:
– Advent of XML as extensible data interchange format in server-toserver communication
– Availability of components, application server containers and
established programming models
– Higher level of abstraction as a starting point for systems
development
25th Sept., 2006
Web 2.0 and Mashups: .com coming of age?


Web 2.0: cover term for technologies enabling rich
user experiences and complex functionality
Mashup: trading and assembly of functionality
through public APIs
– http://www.programmableweb.com/

Web Application Hosting
–
–
–
–
SalesForce.com: online CRM system
Google writely: online text processor
Del.ico.us: online, collaborative bookmarking
YouOS, Microsoft’s Live.com, Yahoo 360° : desktop in a web
browser
– MySpace.com
25th Sept., 2006
Web 2.0 and Mashup Examples




http://www.connotea.org/
http://www.scanbuy.com/
http://tvmap.thomasscott.net/
http://lovejoy.nerc-essc.ac.uk:8080/Godiva2
25th Sept., 2006
Components and Services



The programming models behind Web 2.0 and
Mashups are the same used for building enterprise
applications, i.e. The boundaries between ‘the web’
and everything else are becoming difficult to define.
Components & services also used within, even what is
sold as an “application” may consist of a configuration
of individually developed components
Inversion of control, programming to interfaces and
aspect orientation make new degrees of
independence between modules possible and allow a
true ‘pick-n-mix’ approach to application assembly,
sourcing from a ‘best of breed’ market.
25th Sept., 2006
Some emerging themes

User-customer-provider relationships are becoming
increasingly complex and dynamic, functionality
arises from combinations of independent parts
–
–
–
–
–
–
Security and privacy in dynamic assemblages
Provenance of data, auditing its processing
Demarcation of areas of responsibility and locating problems
Maintaining technological and operational alignment
Managing usage, avoiding abuse
Increased importance of and changing modes of
standardisation?
25th Sept., 2006
Relevance: yet another bubble?


Amazon claims to have made 28% of its turnover
through its programmable interfaces in 2Q05:
$490M (source: iX Magazin)
eBay processed 8 billion web service requests in
4Q05 and counted 1900 applications using its
services
(source: iX Magazin)
25th Sept., 2006
Wider Relevance of Grid/eScience

Many future applications will require functionality
being developed in the Grid/eScience community, may
problems are the same:
– security/privacy requirements (MySpace - CancerGrid)
– provenance and conditions of use (Flickr - UK data archive)

eScience and other applications are starting to
inform each other, Grid technologies and the Web
Service world are beginning to merge
25th Sept., 2006