Proposal to remove the input/output details from definitions

[adammontville]

Several of our terms, such as SACM Component Discovery include some indication of what input and output they would expect. Such information seems very much out of place in a terminology definition.

Are input/output items pertinent to the definition of a term?

[henkbirkholz]

Agreed. I think they should go into the architecture. Also, we probably need more running code to refine the understanding of their "scope" (I do not mean WG scope!).

[adammontville]

Addressed in branch no-label-issues (to be sync'd soon)