If the definition paired a consumption side with the service would you find it less offensive?

WOA = RESTful APIs + XmlHttpRequest

as in:

“I just built a sweet WOA application. I expose a database of pizza restaurants using a REST API on the server, and then built an Ajax UI so the user can comment on them.”

There is one mis-perception in the references I quoted above. These reports are implying that POX is RESTful – but unfortunately it is not, as POX does not adhere to the hypermedia constraint of REST.

Secondly, WOA, as it is being defined is not new. This is what Roy Fielding has been advocating since the days of HTTP 1.1. It is almost offensive to take REST and plant a new label on top it.

I actually like the term, but don’t like Gartner correlating it directly with the term SOA, even if it may be technically correct.

I feel that there is a connotation of:

SOA == WS*

just like the term “web services” has come to connote “Web Services”:

web services == WS*

I know SOA/”web services” are not prescriptive of technology, but in general use it seems that people use these terms mostly in context of WS*. I would prefer to say WOA complements SOA to avoid confusion.

I don’t agree with Gartner that WOA must include WWW access. WOA can be used on the intranet with great benefit.

I would agree with you Subbu that WOA == RESTful APIs:

WOA = RESTful APIs = HTTP + REST principles +(POX | JSON)

PJL