While oEmbed is certainly quite neat, I very much agree with the criticism regarding the lack of RESTfulness, and that they have defined a new metadata carrier. I think oEmbed would work very well as an extension element in Atom Entry documents (who already have most of the properties oEmbed (re-)defines). Or by reusing (in such atom entry docs) e.g. Media RSS, as Stephen Weber suggested.
Granted, if (as I do hope) RESTfulness and Atom permeation on the web becomes much more well established (approaching ubiquity), this would be dead easy to define further down the line. (And signs of this adoption continue to pop up, even involving the gargantuans..)
But since it wasn't done right away, oEmbed is to some extent another part of the fragmented web data infrastructure — already in dire need of unification. It's not terrible of course, JSON is very effective — it's just too context-dependent and stripped to work for much more than end-user consumption in "vertical" scenarios. While oEmbed itself is such a scenario, it could very well piggy-back on a more reusable format and thus promote much wider data usability.
A mockup (with unsolicited URI minting in the spaces of others) based on the oEmbed quick example could look like:
<oembed:photo version="1.0" width="240" height="160"/>
The main point, which I have mentioned before, is that Atom Entries work extremely well as manifests of resources. This is something I hope the REST community will pick up in a large way. Atom feeds complement the RESTful infrastructure by defining a standard format for resource collections, and from that it seems quite natural to expose manifests of singular resources as well using the same format.
In case you're wondering: no, I still believe in RDF. It's just easier to sell uniformity one step at a time, and RDF is unfortunately still not well known in the instrumental service shops I've come in contact with (you know, the ones where integration projects pop up ever so often, mainly involves hard technology, and rarely if ever reuse domain knowledge properly). So I choose to support Atom adoption to increase resource orientation and uniformity — we can continue on to RDF if these principles continue to gain momentum (which they will, I'm sure).
Thus I also think we should keep defining the bridge(s) from Atom to RDF for the 3.0 web.. There are some sizzling activities on that respect which can be seen both in the Atom syntax mailing list and the semantic web list. My interest stems from what I currently do at work (and as a hobby it seems). Albeit this is from a very instrumental perspective — and as a complement, rather than an actual bridge.
In part, it's about making Atom entries from RDF, in order for simple RESTful consumers to be able to eat some specific Atom crumbs from the semantic cakes I'm most certainly keeping (the best thing since croutons, no doubt). These entries aren't complete mappings, only selected parts, semantically more coarse-grained and ambiguous. While ambiguity corrupts data (making integration a nightmare), it is used effectively in "lower-case sem-web" things such as tagging and JSON. (Admittedly I suppose it's ontologically and cognitively questionable whether it can ever be fully avoided though.)
We have proper RDF at the core, so this is about meeting "half way" with the gist of keeping things simple without loosing data quality in the process. To reduce and contextualize for common services — that is at the service level, not the resource level. (I called this "RA/SA decoupling" somewhere, for "Resource Application"/"Service Application". Ah well, this will all be clarified when I write down the COURT manifesto ("Crafting Organisation Using Resources over Time"). :D)