## 2 Three Notions of Sociality for the Analysis of Social Software
### An Integrative View of Sociality  
It makes sense to develop an integrative view of these three sociality types rather than considering them separately for the following two reasons: first, the structural, the action, and the co-operation type of sociality can easily be integrated in the way the Aristotelian _genus proximum_ and _differentia specifica_ are linked together: [PERSON]'s notion of the _fait social_ is the most abstract notion. As such it also applies to actions that - in the sense of [PERSON] - are directed towards other members of society \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|p{56.9 pt}|p{113.8 pt}|p{113.8 pt}|p{113.8 pt}|} \hline  & **Approach** & **Sociological Theory** & **Meaning of Social Software and Web 2.0** \\ \hline
1 & Structural Theories & _[PERSON]:_ Social facts as fixed and objectified social structures that constantly condition social behaviour. & All computers and the World Wide Web are social because they are structures that objectify human interests, understandings, goals, and intentions, have certain functions in society, and effect social behaviour. \\ \hline
2 & Social Action Theories & _[PERSON]:_ Social behaviour as reciprocal symbolic interaction. & Software on the World Wide Web that enables communication over spatio-temporal distances. \\ \hline
3 & Theories of Social Cooperation & _[PERSON]:_ Communities as social systems that are based on feelings of togetherness, mutual dependence, and values. _[PERSON]:_ The social as the co-operation of many humans that results in collective goods that should be owned co-operatively. & Software on the World Wide Web that by an architecture of participation enables the collaborative production of digital knowledge that is more than the sum of individual knowledge, _i.e._, a form of collective intelligence. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Different understandings of Social Software and Web 2.0 from different sociological perspectives. and, beyond that, to the production of common goods within a community in the Tonniesian and Marxian sense. Defining sociality in the mode, [PERSON] can be seen as making the case for a more concrete and more particular type of sociality than the Durkheimian one: the latter underlies the former. And the Tonnies-Marx concept, finally, is still less general and a subcategory of the Weberian one. Thus, they form a kind of hierarchy, in which the successor is a logical modification of the predecessor: it takes place under certain constraining conditions. Second, there is an analogous relationship between the three forms, in which information processes occur in society: cognition, communication, and co-operation processes. These processes relate to each other in a way that reflects and resembles the build-up of a complex system. One is the prerequisite for the other in the following way: in order to co-operate you need to communicate and in order to communicate you need to cognise. Therefore, we suggest an integrative view of how sociality is manifested in Social Software. If the Web is defined as a techno-social system that comprises the social processes of cognition, communication and cooperation altogether, then the whole Web is Durkheimian, since it is a _fait social_. What in the most widespread usage is called Social Software - that is that part of the Web that realizes communicative as well as cooperative societal roles - is, in addition, social in the Weberian sense, while it is the community building and collaborative part of the Web that is social only in the most concrete sense of [PERSON] and [PERSON]. To put it in another way: that part of the Web that deals with cognition only is exclusively Durkheimian without being Weberian, let alone Tonniesian-Marxian; that part that is about communication including cognition is Weberian and Durkheimian; and only the third, co-operative, part carries all three meanings. We suggest ascribing the terms Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 to these parts accordingly (see Table 2).