Talk:OPC Unified Architecture

This article is rather a mess. The introduction reads as a commercial statement. Worse, it reads as a commercial statement written for people who are already familiar with similar technology. The introduction talks about who made it, what it is a successor to, and then goes into even more irrelevant details, but no mention about what OPC Unified Architecture is in the first place. Then the rest of the article starts by talking about what it is not. I've read most of the article now, and I still have absolutely no idea what it is about. 80.65.109.181 (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is just an educated guess, but everywhere there's an undefined abbreviation (or acronym), this is a good start. Much more importantly, and I'm suffering the same problem as you, these are supposed to be publicly accessible encyclopedic articles. By this, I mean that a senior in high-school with a general education should be able to read this article. I know that when I discuss highly technical issues, I'm sometimes forced to simplify the discussion to a point that leaves important facts out, or to compare and contrast subjects to more familiar, common items and behaviors that may not accurate or reasonable in an extended context. That type of simplification would also not be permitted in an encyclopedic article such as this. KnockNrod (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

''At the OPC UA DevCon in October 2006 in Munich the first prototypes were presented live. Various UA Servers have been shown on a Beckhoff programmable logic controller and an embedded test board from Euros. The Beckhoff PLC is based on Windows XP Embedded and the embedded controller is based on the real-time operating system Euros. The company Embedded Labs Ltd demonstrated an OPC-UA Server based on their own C++ UA Stack executing on a single chip ARM microcontroller with 64kB RAM.'' - wow, isn't that called advertising? 77.252.37.44 (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this was "advertise"-y enough to be removed completely. I moved it to "innovations", because that seemed like a good place to put impractical information. --68.14.245.132 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

91.217.255.5 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

"As visible on the figure above", but there is no figure. Also, some "green parts" are mentioned, presumably this referes to a figure as well.
 * I removed all references to the figure. The stack section is still pretty useless, but I didn't deleted it completely, because I didn't want to destroy what little, bare-bones information we have on the topic. --68.14.245.132 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The External Links section links to many specific implementations of the API. Is this advertising? At the very least maybe they should be moved to a separate list of implementations.192.151.110.230 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that this is more commercial than what we should normally allow... but we just don't have enough relevant information to start deleting things that have anything at all to do with the topic.--68.14.245.132 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)