On quinta-feira, 2 de mar?o de 2017 13:18:05 PST Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2017 2:56 PM, "Thiago Macieira" <thiago.macieira at intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> IoTivity-constrained can. The whole point of this discussion is whether we
> should even try to get the full one to fit.
>
>
> or rather, the underlying question is "what does 'Iotivity' mean?"
> regrettably, the name of the protocol is the same as the name of the
> organization. If "Iotivity" were the name of the protocol, we would be
> talking about variant implementations of the protocol. as it stands,
> "implementation of iotivity" is meaningless, since iotivity _is_ an
> implementation. iotivity-constrained is an ocf implementation that happens
> to have 'iotivity' in its name. in fact it has little to do with
> "iotivity", as far as i can see.
IoTivity is not the name of the protocol, OCF is.
IoTivity is the name of the organisation and the name of the main application.
This is just like Apache:
Protocol Project Application name
HTTP Apache httpd
OCF IoTivity iotivity (full?)
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
