>> However, resource spec based filtering looks strange because >> IoTivity cannot follows the whole spec context and update. > > Sorry, I didn't follow this one.
Thiago, If I understood both of you correctly, I think Uze is confused by your example in which you mentioned that "com.samsung.freezer? MAY have a property ?temp? because its already reserved by some OCF standard resource (from the OCF resource spec). He probably misunderstood that it SHOULD, and so IoTivity must have to constantly track updates to the OCF resource spec to add new rules for allowing usage of newly reserved property names. Using a separate ?rep? property as you suggested avoids name collisions with common properties, and still any new common properties could be named using the x_? scheme. But if ?rep? isn?t coming back, it might be helpful, for the sake of clarity, to call out a simple rule of thumb in which all vendor specified resources must use the x_? nomenclature for all their representation and custom common properties regardless of whether they?re reserved. - Kishen Maloor Intel Open Source Technology Center
