Talk:Resource-oriented architecture

Remove?
I would like to remove complete or mostly the following sections Why the Web? Join the Conversation The World of Representations They seem more like an interpretation and personal knowledge building exercise, than capturing the state of ROA as people discuss it today. Ozten 23:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that we keep this page seperate from the REST page, as it is a specific implementation / set of guidelines that avoids the nebulous nature of the REST related debates. This is documented in Sam Ruby's RESTFul Web Services. Ozten 23:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

REST is more famous of ROA, but - in my opinion - many of the concepts that are exposed under the Representational State Transfer page are more appropriate in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.16.210.104 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, many of the concepts expressed on Representational State Transfer seem very specific to Ruby on Rails's REST implementation, and not to a more general ROA approach. Ivey (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just read the article and it doesn't become clear to me

Self-Promotion?
This article was created by a user caller Resourceoriented who provides no information about himself or herself and has made no other edits. The only sources for this article are an unpublished thesis and various blog postings. The most recent edit (06:41, September 26, 2008) is by a user called Jthelin claiming that the term was invented by someone called, er, Jorgen Thelin, with several references to his blog. (See Jorgen's blog.) This is a flagrant contravention of Wikipedia policies on self-promotion, and I don't think anyone else really cares anyway, so I am deleting the entire section. --RichardVeryard (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if "self-promotion" is a Wikipedia-esque term for replacing a clearly incorrect fact in the earlier article (ie, incorrectly stating that the term ROA was "invented" in August 2006) by a proven earlier public usage (February 2003) that is independently proved and verifiable by a respected third party source (conference proceedings on the Object Management Group website, then I guess you may be right Richard.

The reference to Roy Fielding's famous REST paper (which is universally acknowledged as the seminal paper about the REST archtecture style - which is now gaining increasingly widespead usage in the IT industry) as merely an "unpublished thesis" clearly shows little or no knowledge of this topic area what-so-ever, so I am not surprised that Richard has no interest in the origins of the terminology in this emerging area of modern software architecture thinking.

Even though I still regard my earlier edits as thoroughly in line with the Wikipedia goals, principles and policies of correcting provably inaccurate facts in a Wikipedia post with proven, verifiable evidence AND maintaining a neutral POV, I will respect the Wikipedia processes by not re-applying my own edits. If anyone with any interest and/or knowledge in this topic area wishes to trace the origin of the terminology covered in this article, then you are most welcome to visit the OMG website and examine the facts for yourself! 

Jthelin (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but fame is not the same as publication. I am certainly aware of Dr Fielding's thesis, and I do not dispute its relevance or importance, but the only reference provided in Wikipedia is to the dissertation on the university website. This is not the same as being published in a scientific journal or book. In any case, Dr Fielding's thesis is not being proposed as the source of the neologism "Resource-oriented architecture". Please look at Reliable sources and Verifiability.


 * I appreciate that you may have been reacting to and correcting an incorrect act of self-promotion by someone else. For this reason I did not revert your edits, but simply deleted the whole section. I think Wikipedia readers are generally more interested in ideas than in the inventors of the ideas, and more interested in the inventors of the ideas than in the people who first use a given label for these ideas. (Who coined the term "Euclidean geometry"? It certainly wasn't Euclid. Does anybody care?)


 * You admit that ROA is an emerging area of thinking, and I do not dispute its future potential, but at present the article looks suspiciously like neologism or original research. If the only sources you can provide are to your own blog and those of your friends, or to presentations given by you at OMG meetings, then it may be premature to expect Wikipedia to include an article on this at all. --RichardVeryard (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The O'Reilly book cited is the most definitive resource right now. Currently ROA is coming up "underground" in the web service architecture community because developers find it to be a straightforward alternative to using web services with WSDL. Ironically, part of the appeal of ROA is that there isn't much complexity to document, and so there's less documentation to cite here. However, it's very real architecture. Mojei (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read the article and it doesn't become clear to me that this is a well-defined subject worthy of inclusion into an encyclopedia. It seems more like a buzzword. If the contents remain similar to what they are now, I propose to strike it altogether. More exact definitions, comparisons with alternatives, perhaps examples, are needed if the reader isn't to come away with the impression that REST is merely one of those vague IT buzzwords. Rp (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate terminology around URI?
I find the following content misleading:

"Query string parameters are appropriate if they are inputs to a Resource which is an algorithm. Otherwise, these values should be moved into the URI"

The issue being that a query string is in fact part of a URI - see

Perhaps the author meant to say "Otherwise, these values should be moved into the path component of the URI"

MattAndErin (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why no table of contents? Why cut & paste?
I can't find if my topic is already addressed, because there's no listing of talk topics. I want to see a talk-topic as to why the article advocates cut & paste, which IMO is too fragile compared to copy & paste, thus the latter should IMO be advocated instead. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)


 * After I used the new-section feature of the WikiPedia service, the table of contents magically appeared, so that part of my question is now moot. 198.144.192.45 (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)

Personal opinion without citation to whose opinion
"The power of the web seems to mostly reside in its ability to ..." Seems according to whom?? I see no citation, so I assume this is merely the personal opinion of some random person who happened to create or edit that section of this article, which as I understand is NOT acceptable WikiPedia content, except in the talk sections (here). 198.144.192.45 (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Twitter.Com/CalRobert (Robert Maas)