Chapter 2

Evolution of the Web

2.1 Evolution of Information and Communication

Technologies

The importance of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT hereafter)

in current society is highlighted in many sources. One illustrative example is the
words of Kofi Annan, the ex-secretary general of the United Nations:
Information and communication technologies are not a panacea or magic formula. But they
can improve the lives of everyone on this planet. (. . .) We have tools that can propel us
toward the Millennium Development Goals; instruments with which to advance the cause
of freedom and democracy; vehicles with which to propagate knowledge and mutual
understanding. (Annan, 2003)

In our current society of knowledge and information, considered by some to be

the “Era of Information,” has ICT at its very core, which affects all aspects of daily
life including the economy and businesses (Garrido, 2010). The ICT are an ampli-
fication of the Information Technologies (IT), which includes a wide range of
technologies based in information systems, apart from computing Martı́nez-
Lopez and Luna (2008) point out four major changes in the ICT’s evolution in
recent decades:
• Between 1960 and 1980 there was the first period characterized by the focus on
large machines, mainframes (central units) and the beginning of minicomputers.
In this phase they were primarily used by large companies and institutions.
• The eighties were characterized by the expansion of personal computer use,
stemming from the appearance of IBM’s PC in 1981. From then on, companies
have progressively integrated their use into the business setting.
• The momentum of the Internet in the nineties produced a paradigm shift, gaining
importance in external communications. This phase had the establishment of
connections between all areas and levels as a priority, making the computer into
a ubiquitous element of life.

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 5

F.J. Martı́nez-López et al., Online Brand Communities, Progress in IS,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-24826-4_2
6 2 Evolution of the Web

• The fourth phase, in which we currently find ourselves, is characterized by the

appearance of convergent, digital multimedia content, promoted by the matur-
ation and possession and use of information infrastructures at the global level,
causing evolution towards the Society of Information and Knowledge.
Peattie and Peters (1997) summarized this process in three phases:
• The computer age (from the seventies through the beginning of the eighties):
characterized by not yet generalized ICT due to their unavailability. However,
there was a growing consciousness about the strategic importance of ICT in the
collection, storage and management of information.
• The PC age (from the middle of the eighties through the beginning of the
nineties): the availability of PCs to small and medium businesses and to con-
sumers increased the use of ICT in the development and execution of business
strategies.
• The communication age (from the beginning of the nineties): the capacity of
communication and connection within and outside of companies grew, leading
to changes in distribution channels and permitting direct contact with
consumers.
Currently, the adoption of and investment in ICT is increasing on a global level,
showing surprisingly high growth numbers over the last two decades. ICT offer
extraordinary opportunities for the evolution of business information systems and
for electronic commerce (Weber & Kauffman, 2011). The possible benefits derived
from the use of ICT have been analyzed in various contexts including the labor
market, education, health, commerce, etc. The interest in ICT stems from the
radical changes caused by its adoption and its effect on the evolution of ways to
establish relations between various economic agents (Pérez-Hernández & Sánchez-
Mangas, 2011).
ICTs are ubiquitous in the social, work and business levels of society, and it is
predicted that they will continually play an increasingly vital role in daily life. ICTs
allow people to develop their activities more quickly, easily and efficiently, and
allow companies to deduce their inefficiencies, accelerating and improving their
processes. Additionally, improvements are seen in equal measure in communi-
cations within companies as well as between companies (Ghadar & Spindler, 2005).
Aside from the progress and change in life-conditions and the social change
around the globe (Rico, 2005), ICTs have had a clear impact on the business world;
they have brought about modifications of distribution and production processes
(Bharadwaj, El Sawy, Pavlou, & Venkatraman, 2013), as well as of work organ-
ization (Rico, 2005). Information is gaining ever greater importance and taking on a
significant role in business. ICTs, by means of creating communication networks
that increase the availability of information and improve compatibility among
networks have become a key part of developing relationships with clients,
employees and other businesses.
Lately, this has forced companies to redesign their organizational processes to
avoid being left out of the game (Ahadi, 2004; Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Sieber,
2.1 Evolution of Information and Communication Technologies 7

2004). All these changes are made with the end in mind of adapting and improving
companies’ competitive edge. They contribute to the improvement of productivity
in terms of fabrication, business efficiency, market penetration, cost reduction and
elimination of manual work and processes, all of which help to strengthen a
company’s competitive advantage (Brynjolfsson & Hitt, 2000; Fuentelsaz, Maicas,
& Polo, 2005; Martı́n, 2010; Rico, 2005; Sieber, 2007).
Additionally, ICTs have reformed traditional businesses, which have adapted to
a strategy that is modular, distributed, interfunctional and oriented towards global
business processes. They allow work to be done regardless of time, distance or
function (Bharadwaj et al., 2013), and they blur the line between digital products
and the concrete ICTs supporting them (Bharadwaj et al., 2013; El Sawy, 2003).
Bharadwaj et al. (2013) analyzed ICTs’ current situation from a strategic point of
view. They point out that, traditionally, the business strategy of a company directs
strategies and actions related to ICT (alignment view). Due to businesses’ becom-
ing increasingly digital—from the transformations that have integrated ICTs into
processes, capacities, products, services, etc.—it has become clear that, rather than
there being a hierarchy between a business’s strategic direction and the direction of
the ITC, a fusion of the two must be created: digital business strategy. To better
understand this, the scope of action of the ICTs, their scale, speed and the sources of
value creation must be studied.
The ICT revolution is increasing both people’s job skills and consumer sophisti-
cation, augmenting education and awareness on a global level. In this way the
increased use of technology and the increase in work productivity are supported,
which, in the end, leads to economic growth (Quah, 2002, p. 22) and transforms
social relations among consumers and between consumers and businesses
(Bharadwaj et al., 2013; Susarla, Oh, & Tan, 2012) (oh god, rework that).
Penetration of ICTs affects growth by diffusing knowledge and improving
businesses’ decision-making abilities, which in turn increase efficacy and efficiency
of finding information sources. Additionally, product costs are reduced while
demand and investment are increased, resulting in progress in both production
and growth (Khuong, 2011). Therefore, the capacity to receive information more
quickly and with greater security produces changes in the internal organization and
structure of companies as well as in their external relationships (Martı́nez-Lopez &
Luna, 2008).
Since the middle of the nineties, researchers have been studying the organ-
izational and economic changes that companies underwent when integrating the
Internet into their production processes. It has been observed that information has
improved decision-making, facilitated interconnectivity with other business and
consumers and has increased productivity. Also, the Internet has increased con-
sumers’ choices, allowing consumers access to a considerable number of options,
usually beyond the limit of what they can consciously analyze (Feldman, 2002).
8 2 Evolution of the Web

2.2 Evolution of the Web

Friedman (2006) points out that the world is becoming flatter, due to diverse
flattening agents including ICTs, which accelerate global changes. The modern
world is increasingly virtual, globalized and connected thanks to the Internet
(Castells, 2001).
At the beginning of the seventies, the web was created by the United States
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), with the goal of
decentralizing electronic communications. In 1969, DARPA, together with other
research groups, developed DARPANET, which came to be called ARPANET
(Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) when certain universities and
research groups were granted access. ARPANET, based on NCP (Network Control
Program) protocols, was considered the backbone of the Internet. From 1982 on,
ARPANET and all other existing networks switched to TCP/IP, which is a collec-
tion of general guide designs and specific protocol implementation that allows a
computer to talk to a network. The same decade saw the appearance of DNS
(Domain Name System), a system of hierarchical nomenclature for computers,
whose objective is to make the equipment connected to a network localizable and
controllable (Pfaffenberger, 2002).
At the beginning of the eighties ARPANET split into Milnet and NSFNET, each
of which had different objectives. Milnet came to be used for North American
government services, while NSFNET became a network used for academic and
research purposes.
By the nineties, with the emergence of the World Wide Web (WWW) and the
associated protocol, http (hypertext transfer protocol), the Internet was coming to
resemble the web we know today. The emergence of the World Wide Web and
hypertext transfer protocol alleviated the congestion of web traffic and increased
the number of users who could access and use it. Since then many distinct versions
of Internet protocol (IP) have emerged, the most noteworthy of which are IPv4
and IPv6. The latter of these came preloaded on the majorities of computer systems.
The use and expansion of the Internet, along with the appearance of a great
amount of companies that were either web-based or were accessible via the web,
occurred extremely rapidly over the course of the nineties. In 2001 the “dot-com
bubble” burst, marking a crucial moment in the development of the web when many
concluded that expectations about the web’s business potential had been greatly
exaggerated. However, this crisis was nothing more than the starting point of a
great, continual ascension that continues into the present. This expansion has
allowed agents and technologies with the right capacities to arise and take their
place (O’Reilly, 2005).
The Internet has hugely affected how we live and completely modified the
human experience. In a way, the Internet is used as another form of media, albeit
one better suited than others to finding information, buying or selling products,
watching television shows, searching for friends and entertainment and for partici-
pating in political circles (Correa, Hinsley, & Gil de Zú~niga, 2010). Tutschku, Tran-
2.2 Evolution of the Web 9

Gia and Andersen (2008) have noted that the Internet is more than just a collection
of physical networks made of IT equipment, but rather something that has evolved
into a network of applications with information and content, making the user into a
participatory element. Therefore, the Internet functions as a structure, within which
users participate freely, with intelligent applications based in knowledge and
services and whose rapid evolution forces the constant creation of new methodo-
logies to implement and operate in layers of applications and networks
superimposed on one another.
The Internet has evolved due to the changes and advances of the technologies
supporting it. These technologies, as well as the focuses and philosophies underly-
ing the management and development of the web, have been given various names
for different versions, from the era of the PC through the future Web 4.0. As of yet,
no one has come to an agreement about what to call the current era. It is generally
accepted that we are witnessing phase 2.0 of the Web, although some believe us to
be in phase 3.0 and others even go so far as to say we are living in the stage of Web
4.0. In any event, the defining elements lie in the differing opinions about which
distinctive factors conform to each version. What is generally accepted is the
importance of content created through user participation to the evolution of
the Web.
Weber (2007) says that we are currently in the third phase of the web but that
we will soon be entering the fourth. He explains that Web 1.0 (1989–1995) was the
era of pages built using HTML. Web 2.0, which began with the arrival of browsers,
allowed people to navigate the web, search and participate in e-commerce effi-
ciently, which set the basis for the Social Web, the advanced version of Web 2.0.
Web 3.0 has arrived in recent years and conforms more to the interests of users.
Finally, Web 4.0 is known as the Emotive Web and is based in high bandwidth
technology that allows for rich and visual content, allowing users to achieve
feelings of satisfaction and accomplishment. In turn, WI-FI and mobile telecom-
munication technologies allow users to connect from anywhere, making access
ubiquitous.

2.2.1 Web 1.0

The functionality of the Web was based on a system in which a Webmaster and a
content generator (companies, generally) created a web page and added content,
which users could then display in a static form (Bernal, 2009). Web 1.0, which is
limited in terms of functionality compared with later versions, was mainly used to
publish documents and conduct transactions; companies were limited to publishing
information about themselves and their products to enable online sales (Cormode &
Krishnamurthy, 2008). The following are some additional characteristics
(Martorell, Solanas, & Sabaté, 2011):
10 2 Evolution of the Web

• Asymmetrical information flow. Companies and consumers began having exten-

sive sources of information at their disposal to shape their policies and affect
their decision-making.
• Consumer dispersion. Few users could generate content as this demanded
knowledge and software that was not available to most users.
• Content created by organizations. The majority of web sites were created by
companies and communication media. They did employ unique languages or
strategies for this new channel; the first corporate websites were basically places
with advertisements for buying and selling online.
In summation, Web 1.0 had a business model that was based on offline models; it
was thought of as another alternative sales channel with no significant differences
from other channels.

2.2.2 Web 2.0: The Start of the Social Web

Web 2.0 can be seen as an update or second version of the Internet in which users
actively participate in its development and expansion by uploading new content, a
key difference from Web 1.0. Another basic aspect is the collaboration and inter-
action between users, a defining element that makes the web into what is known as
the Social Web. This participation and collaboration are manifested in the form of
virtual communities, virtual social networks, web aggregators, etc.; tools that will
be analyzed later on. Web 2.0 represents a paradigm shift, a change from the
distribution of products to the distribution of services, which can in turn be used
and combined with other services (Bernal, 2009). The Web evolved from a
top-down model to a model in which the users are the genuine protagonists
(Maciá & Gosende, 2010).
The term “2.0” was coined by Tim O’Reilly, at the suggestion of Dale
Dougherty, vice president of O’Reilly Media, after brainstorming ideas for a
name for the “O’Reilly Media Web 2.0 Conference,” which took place at the end
of 2004. O’Reilly (2005) described the Web 2.0 as a series of principles and
practices, including seeing the web as a platform as well as exploiting collective
intelligence. He considered the derailing of the dot-coms to represent a crucial
junction for the Web, being the starting point for the conference. Web 2.0 is viewed
as a second generation of the Internet, based on new technical aspects that appeared
towards the end of the last century; it is the result of the implementation and
innovation of new technologies and standards within the platform itself (Bernal,
2009). It is based in services and information pushed forward by the communities
and users themselves though virtual communities, social networks, blogs, wikis,
forums, etc., which make it possible to have a society that is interconnected and able
to communicate, collaborate and define the information existing in the Web (Levy,
2009; Paroutis & Al Saleh, 2009). The seven principals of the Web 2.0 as defined by
O’Reilly are (Burgos & Cortés, 2009):
2.2 Evolution of the Web 11

• The Web as a platform: we use websites as applications.

• Exploitation of collective intelligence: the sum of users’ knowledge and acti-
vities increases the value and activity of the online setting.
• Perpetual Beta: software is delivered as a service whose first version (version
“Beta”) is infinite and the users act as co-developers.
• Open Models: open source permits programming and development to be trans-
parent processes, which is imperative for constant improvement.
• Software is not limited to a single device: the PC is not the only way to access the
Internet.
• The user is king: users’ online experiences should be based on easy-to-use sites
and applications.
Web 2.0’s rapid development was a result of users’ employing the web in new
ways. It allowed the exchange of files peer-to-peer, facilitating communication,
collaborative work, democratization of content, and creation of content by users
(Lozano, 2008; Maciá & Gosende, 2010). Websites were forced to adapt, switching
Web directories to sites that could be labeled as social pages—personal blogs—and
online encyclopedias were converted to wikis (Tasner, 2010a).
Social networks, user-generated content, social and intelligent organization of
information (RSS, bookmarking, etc.), applications and services linked by mashups
stand out as the pillars of the Web 2.0 (Cobo & Pardo, 2007). There are other factors
that supported Web 2.0’s expansion: the ubiquity of Internet access, the emergence
of powerful and accessible analytical systems that generate feedback, the standard-
ization of Web formats that make the integration of content possible, and even the
economic crisis, which forced companies to adopt Web 2.0 for competitive ends
(Maciá & Gosende, 2010). In Web 2.0 the information, consumers are also pro-
ducers or contributors; they are “prosumers” (producer þ consumer).
Therefore, Web 2.0 is not only an evolution of the Internet, but rather of the use
of the Internet as a platform with improves functionality, communication and
collaboration; it has allowed an explosion of content, connectivity, and the emer-
gence of new applications and means for interconnectivity between people (Fluss &
Eisenfeld, 2009). Web 2.0’s tools have switched the focal point of the Internet from
business-centric to consumer-centric. This change is precisely what differentiates
Web 2.0 from Web 1.0; Web 2.0 is centered on the consumer, and is user-generated,
interactive and dynamic, thereby encouraging community participation and build-
ing collective intelligence (Singh, Veron-Jackson, & Cullinane, 2008). The con-
sumers of information are also its producers, capable of creating it and distributing
it thanks to the availability of a multitude of tools and publication platforms on the
Web (Lozano, 2008). These technologies that facilitate publication are a part of
Web 2.0’s infrastructure; there are content system managers, which enable anyone
to create pages for publication such as blogs with no need for Web programming
expertise; additionally, there are standardized microformats available that allow the
sharing of information with other websites, for example the case of RSS (Rich Site
Summary), which will be discussed in a later section.
12 2 Evolution of the Web

The websites and applications that emerged in this context exhibit an elevated
social component; they allowed profiles to be created and interaction within the site
or community, as well as the promotion of user-generated content (Cormode &
Krishnamurthy, 2008). As a consequence, the co-creation of content between
companies and users on the Web like YouTube, Facebook, Delicious, etc.
completely changed the role of the user. Companies have had to familiarize
themselves with the concepts born out of the Web 2.0, primarily with the new
means of relating to users, beginning an assimilation process that is slow but is
expected to create large benefits (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008). Companies
must accept that people are becoming as important as the means of communication
or the businesses themselves in the generation of knowledge and ideas since they
now have the tools and applications needed to express their opinions; this has
entailed significant changes in society and the economy (Dans, 2008). Some
noteworthy examples of companies having successfully survived the evolution
from Web 1.0 to 2.0 and exploited collective intelligence are: Yahoo!, Google,
eBay and Amazon (O’Reilly, 2005).

2.2.3 Semantic Web

Many authorities consider the terms “Semantic Web” and “Web 3.0” to be synon-
ymous (e.g., Socco, 2011; Weber, 2007). Other authors point out that the Semantic
Web does not constitute a phase in the Web’s evolution in and of itself, but rather
deals with a series of IT applications and languages that have improved the
intelligence of the Web (e.g., Berners-Lee, Hendler, & Lassila, 2001; Fumero,
Roca, & Sáez, 2007; Gruber, 2008; Hendler & Berners-Lee, 2010). We share this
viewpoint, although we prefer to treat the Semantic Web as an independent section
within Web 3.0.
Credit for the idea of the Semantic Web is given to Tim Berners-Lee, who also
promoted the languages of HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language), HTTP (Hyper
Text Transfer Protocol) and of the URL (Uniform Resource Locator) system. With
the goal of improving his research, Berners-Lee tried to include semantic inform-
ation in the data contained in the WWW from the beginning, however, due to
technological limitations, this was not possible. Berners-Lee et al. (2001) believed
that the Semantic Web would make information understandable not only to human
beings but also to intelligent systems. Since the emergence of the Semantic Web,
many web-based applications have been released that would have previously been
inconceivable, ranging from semantic search engines to intelligent agents.1 In this
way, the Semantic Web added semantic metadata and ontology-based data to the
Web, making it possible for information to be automatically understood and
evaluated by processing machines. The machines are conversing among one

1
Computer programs without human operators that search for information.
2.2 Evolution of the Web 13

another, making the Web into a huge intelligent library where the users program the
behavior of the different data flows; this converts the Internet into a neuronal
system capable of understanding itself (Cobo & Pardo, 2007). Because of this,
Hendler and Berners-Lee (2010) consider the Semantic Web to constitute a para-
digm shift, reaching the next level in the abstraction of the Web’s basic infrastruc-
ture. However, it is important to note that there have been critical voices that point
out the extreme technical difficulties related to its implementation (e.g., Codina,
2003).
The main reason that the Semantic Web is seen as a significant evolution within
the Web is that it allows programmers and users to reference real objects without
importing the underlying documents where the object,—abstract or otherwise—is
described (Hendler & Berners-Lee, 2010). This implies that the Semantic Web
allows the identification of real elements with words, images, etc. that are available
on the Web. Said connection did not previously exist; the Web did not have any
understanding of the real significance of the information it contained nor the
connections with elements of reality. The Semantic Web implies an evolution of
the Internet beyond its standard definition. In this way, the primary difference
between the classic Web and the Semantic Web is that in the latter, data is presented
in a structured form and are understandable to the system (Gruber, 2008). There-
fore, the Semantic Web is a more expansive Web with greater meaning where,
thanks to better defined information, users can find answers to their answers faster
and more easily, interacting with the systems instead of merely being passive
elements (Celaya, 2008; Hendler & Berners-Lee, 2010). Some of the basic moti-
vations for the Semantic Web were born from the failures of the original Web that
caused problems with searching and displaying Web 2.0’s applications (Hendler &
Golbeck, 2008).
The power of this new Web relies on people being able to find what they are truly
looking for. The technologies of the Semantic Web, social networks and the
labeling and linking of content will be truly useful when they permit people to do
things that matter (Hendler & Golbeck, 2008). The Semantic Web permits a new
generation of decentralized management of knowledge leading to an improved flow
of information with metadata that can be processed by the machines themselves
(Cayzer, 2004). Also, the Semantic Web’s platform allows sharing and recycling
knowledge (Zhou, Ding, & Finin, 2011). The possibilities of this new platform for
automanagement of documents and information, both public and private, are
infinite. The primary impact of having a self-analyzing Web is a matter of trans-
parency and access to public information (Gross, 2011).
The power of the web increases through the effect produced by links between
distinct elements according Metcalfe’s Law, which states that the value of a
network increases proportionally to the number of elements it is comprised of
squared. In the Web 2.0, this effect is largely due to links between people but not
to the labels attached to the data that comprise the Web since these have few labels
and do not correctly conform in all cases. In the Semantic Web, however, the
opposite situation occurs; the value is generated through ontologies and semantic
information and their links but lacks connections between users. However it is, the
14 2 Evolution of the Web

importance of both Webs is network-based, either between people or between data

(Hendler & Golbeck, 2008).
The lines between Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web are established. However, by
looking at various perspectives, it appears that the Semantic Web and Social Web
are like two worlds with opposing purposes. Although these perspectives ought to
be unified, allowing both families of technology the opportunity to advance
together in the Web (Gross, 2011). The combination of both technologies is
necessary. This will allow exploitation of the links’ effect, revolutionizing the
modes of interaction on the Web and aggregating sources of data that could then
be shared and made available in different places of the users’ choosing (Hendler &
Golbeck, 2008).

2.2.4 Web 3.0

Many media have confirmed that the Web 2.0 has been rendered obsolete and that
we now find ourselves in the next phase: Web 3.0, mentioned for the first time in
2006, which focuses on artificial intelligence and intelligent machines (Socco,
2011). Among the key elements of the Web 3.0, we find the changes in the habits
and methods of website displays, the intelligence of available information, the
users’ search experiences and the opening of the Web (Tasner, 2010b). The
combination of machine and human intelligence afforded by the Semantic Web
make information richer, more relevant, timely and accessible by using more
powerful languages, neuronal networks, genetic algorithms, etc. In this way, the
Web 3.0 is focused on analysis, information processing and its later conversion into
ideas.
The web 3.0 was constructed as a revision of the Semantic Web. It has a certain
amount of artificial intelligence, which is enabled by exploiting patterns created by
active users whose activity is registered as well as by analyzing the processes of
collective intelligence generated by the dynamic relationships in the Social Web
(Fumero et al., 2007). O’Reilly (2011) considers the next stage in the evolution of
the Web to be the Web 3.0. She calls it the Web of feelings and collective
intelligence; it is a global mind and network. From a marketing point of view, the
Web 3.0 is comprised of five key components (Tasner, 2010b):
• Microblogging: sites that consist of sharing one’s thoughts in few characters.
Examples: Twitter, Plurk and Jaiku.
• Virtual reality worlds: spaces visited by users to interact with other users in a 3D
platform.
• Customization/personalization: features that allow users to create a unique and
individual experience. Examples: SendOutCards, Google and Amazon.
• Mobility: mobile devices and the ability to connect to the red through them make
possible a huge amount of new applications.
2.2 Evolution of the Web 15

• On demand collaboration: users interact by supervising documents, collabo-

rating and making changes all in real time. Examples: Google Drive, salesforce.
com, slideshare.net and box.net.

2.2.5 Web 4.0 and the Future of the Internet

The evolution of the Internet, since its creating, has developed organically, simi-
larly to how the evolution of a living organism. It has been reconfigured sponta-
neously due to changes in its key components without following any strict model or
design (Murphy, 2010).
Thanks to the proliferation of wireless communication, the connection between
people and objects no longer has spatial limitations, allowing for real-time inte-
gration, reaching a new level of content and making improved analysis possible.
In this way, the Ubiquitous Web that has been talked about for more than a decade
has taken on a more important and expansive role (O’Reilly & Battelle, 2009).
When considering what would come next in the Internet’s evolution, O’Reilly
and Battelle (2009) explained that the future lies in what is known as Web Squared,
a fusion between the Web and the real world; the Web’s growth is no longer linear,
but exponential, which is why the next phase is the Web Squared. This new Web
would be an evolution of Web 2.0, a platform in which content is generated and
shared by users. In this Web, the connections between users and their interaction
with technology meld the Internet’s users into a “global mind.” In the Web Squared,
technologies and applications based in semantic, collective intelligence, etc., learn
from content, creating more information and making itself worth more than the sum
of its parts. Furthermore, one must take into consideration the value created by the
fusion of the mobile and social Webs and the convergence between the Web and
reality, which will give rise to an augmented reality (Lopez, 2011).
Although it is yet to be examined by the scientific community, various bloggers
specializing in Internet and computation-related technological advances have
already begun speaking about the Web 5.0 or the Sensory-Emotional Web. Cur-
rently, the Web, despite provoking reactions from its users, is itself unaffected by
the emotional reactions of its users. However, technologies are being developed
that would allow the Web’s effects on users to be measured by the Web in such a
way that it could register their emotions (e.g., through the phrases that they write
or from their facial expression), allowing for greater personalization of each
Web-user.
http://www.springer.com/978-3-319-24824-0