Terminology review with IETF

[mkovatsc]

We had a workshop with IETF people to check the compatibility of the definitions around affordances, hypermedia controls, etc.

We worked out a good model, but noticed that the definitions of many terms had drifted toward wrong statements.

This PR provides corrections and removes some terminology entries that are unneeded (e.g., terms that are never used in the document).

There needs to be another PR that updates the longer definitions under Section 6. We also made some action items to align properly in the TD document.

Another identified issue is the new text on "Wot Servients" in Section 6.1, the use of "WoT Client/Server role", and the confusion of Servient and intermediary.

[mlagally]

@mkovatsc thanks very much for the review. Are there meeting notes of the IETF workshop?

[mlagally]

Diff: https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fwot-architecture%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.staticaly.com%2Fgh%2Fw3c%2Fwot-architecture%2Fmkovatsc-ietf-terminology-review%2Findex.html

[mkovatsc]

There are two chaotic Etherpads and a few pictures:

• https://etherpad.tools.ietf.org/p/notes-t2trg-w3c-wot-20190402
• https://etherpad.tools.ietf.org/p/notes-t2trg-w3c-wot-20190403

[takuki]

Another identified issue is the new text on "Wot Servients" in Section 6.1, the use of "WoT Client/Server role", and the confusion of Servient and intermediary.

Sorry that I could not attend the architecture telecon. What kind of issues and confusions were found with regards to section 6.1?

[k-toumura]

In the part of 4th April architecture telecon, we discussed about unclear usage of terminology client/servient/server, application/gateway/proxy/twin/device, etc.
After discussion, we've decided not to use the term client/server role in Section 4.3 (Use case summary) because it impose client role (actively initiate a communication) or server role (passively wait a communication) to devices, applications, edge devices.

And also, @mkovatsc proposes to update terminology and some part of this PR is related with above discussion ('Servient' is a software stack, not a role).

Due to limited time for CR submission, @mlagally plans to merge this PR after today's TD call
(Friday at 4am US Eastern / 1am US Pacific / 10am Europe / 5pm Japan) if there is no objection.
And based on this result, @mkovatsc will start update Section 6.
@takuki , please review the PR (and issue #195, #146, #188) and comment if you have an opinion for this.

[takuki]

Thank you @k-toumura -san. I left a comment in #188.

[mlagally]

It would be pragmatic to have both terms WoT Servient and Servient defined in the document.

[mlagally]

Discussed and approved in the call on 5.4.