Issues 146, 164, 165, 166

[mlagally]

• consistent terminology in requirements "thing"
• new requirement not to enforce client and server role
• editorial fixes

[mmccool]

Line 1430: it would be clearer if you gave examples of BOTH directions, e.g. "An IoT device can be either a client or a server, or both, depending on the system architecture; the same is true of edge and cloud services."
1452: I would drop the "WoT clients". It is premature, since at this point we are just identifying components without reference to WoT. It is also odd to only mention the client role. I would also just mention a directory as yet another component (service that assists with discovery). At the very least the current sentence should not have a comma and should talk in the singular, since you are only mentioning one "additional component". I would be ok with changing the last sentence to "An additional component useful in some use cases is the directory, which assists with discovery."
1501: perhaps premature to mention TDs (just as it is premature to mention things). Maybe this sentence should be something like "Applications need to be able to generate and use network and program interfaces based on metadata (descriptions)." We could use either metadata or descriptions here but I think it's good to use both since otherwise metadata is a little vague, but it is used in various places, so a reminder that these mean similar things is useful. Also I have both internal (program) and external (network) interfaces in this one sentence... In the next sentence, delete "these thing" and TD (replace the latter with "descriptions"); it still makes sense without these (forward) references.
1513: just say "descriptions" instead of "thing descriptions (TD). I would also drop "device" from "device descriptions". Describing the device is a little unclear; it sounds like you are describing the physical entity; plus, what if it is a service? In this case being broader is better IMO.
2884: cloud application controls (subject-verb number agreement)

Other than that, good. I did not check if ALL the "thing" usages were corrected but I intend to do another editorial pass myself. We probably should avoid using "thing" UNLESS we are using it in its special meaning.

[mmccool]

Sorry for the one big review... I will do this properly next time.

[mlagally]

@mmccool thanks for your valuable feedback - I incorporated the changes and will merge the PR in a minute.