Relationship to the world wide web and rest architectures

Representational State Transfer

which is used to define a new goals for World Wide Web architecture. The model and the . problems related to the nature of human-computer interactions. . The server component of the REST architecture is supposed to be stateless [1]. Representational State Transfer (REST) is a style of architecture based on a set of This is essentially the architecture of the Internet and helps to explain the popularity and Related Online Briefings . World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) . Web architecture encompasses both protocols that define the Authoritative server metadata; Don't guess metadata; Understand REST The following illustration shows the simplest relationship between identifier, resource.

Representational State Transfer (REST)

For example, the message concept identifies a class of object not to be confused with Objects and Classes as are found in Object Oriented Programming languages that we expect to be able to identify in any Web services context. The precise form of a message may be different in different realizations, but the message concept tells us what to look for in a given concrete system rather than prescribing its precise form. Not all concepts will have a realization in terms of data objects or structures occurring in computers or communications devices; for example the person or organization refers to people and human organizations.

Other concepts are more abstract still; for example, message reliability denotes a property of the message transport service — a property that cannot be touched but nonetheless is important to Web services.

Representational State Transfer (REST)

Each concept is presented in a regular, stylized way consisting of a short definition, an enumeration of the relationships with other concepts, and a slightly longer explanatory description. For example, the concept of agent includes as relating concepts the fact that an agent is a computational resource, has an identifier and an owner. The description part of the agent explains in more detail why agents are important to the archicture.

Grammatically, relationships are verbs; or more accurately, predicates. A statement of a relationship typically takes the form: For example, in agentwe state that: An agent is a computational resource This statement makes an assertion, in this case about the nature of agents. Many such statements are descriptive, others are definitive: Conversely, any system for which we cannot identify the sender of a message is not conformant to the architecture.

Architectural Principles of the World Wide Web

Even if a service is used anonymously, the sender has an identifier but it is not possible to associate this identifier with an actual person or organization. A concept map is an informal, graphical way to illustrate key concepts and relationships. For example the diagram: Concept Map shows three concepts which are related in various ways.

Each box represents a concept, and each arrow or labeled arc represents a relationship. The merit of a concept map is that it allows rapid navigation of the key concepts and illustrates how they relate to each other. It should be stressed however that these diagrams are primarily navigational aids; the written text is the definitive source. Although different models share concepts, it is usually from different points of view; the major role of a model is to explain and encapsulate a significant theme within the overall Web services architecture.

relationship to the world wide web and rest architectures

For example, the Message Oriented Model focuses and explains Web services strictly from a message passing perspective. In particular, it does not attempt to relate messages to services provided.

Messages carry representations of a resource. The following illustration shows the simplest relationship between identifier, resource, and representation. The TAG may include additional illustrations in this document to help explain important terms and their relationships. About this Document This document is an ongoing attempt to describe the properties we desire of the Web and the design choices that have been made to achieve them.

This document promotes re-use of existing standards when suitable, and gives some guidance on how to innovate in a manner consistent with the Web architecture. The intended audience for this document includes: Participants in W3C Activities; i. Other groups and individuals developing technologies to be integrated into the Web. Implementers of W3C specifications, and those who use the resulting products.

The TAG will need to confirm either that the good practice and other notes use these terms as advertised, or clarify the relationship to RFC definitions.

How the Internet Works in 5 Minutes

Readers will benefit from familiarity with the Requests for Comments RFC series from the IETFsome of which define pieces of the architecture discussed in this document.

Scope of this Document This document focuses on the architecture of the Web. Other groups inside and outside W3C also address specialized aspects of Web architecture, including accessibility, internationalization, device independence, and Web Services.

The section on Architectural Specifications includes some references. This document attempts to balance the value of brevity and precision with the value of illustrative examples.

TAG findings provide more background, motivation, and examples. The architecture described in this document is primarily the result of experience.

relationship to the world wide web and rest architectures

This shared vocabulary has a tangible value: This fails to use URIs as they were designed to be used. Using REST this is the case, and depending on your request method, different actions can be invoked.

It's already here today; in fact it's been here for the last 12 years!

  • Representational State Transfer
  • Representational state transfer

Resource centric rather than method centric. Given a URI anyone already knows how to access it. It's not another protocol on top of another protocol on top of another protocol on top of The response payload can be of any format some may call this a disadvantage, however the Web copes with it, it's just a case of defining the application grammar.