This was discussed by the working group several times and decided several times that the term fits what we want to say in the specification.

I don't care how many times it was discussed - as I said I don't think the authors of the specification are in charge to add completely new meaning...

My problem is that working on any derived articles I need to refer to terminology provided by the specification to avoid opening unimportant discussion. The problem is that I am putting my name in front of any publication, but the specification is published on behalf of OPCF - an abstract organization that mitigates the editors responsibility.

The term is the most important one for arguing against the specification adoption, because it is difficult to find any useful features that add value comparing it with the protocols like AMQP and MQTT. The only I can find is using it as a "gateway" between different protocol - we are going back to OPC classic where we have proprietary underlying field level protocols.

What I am expecting is a link to a robust publication defining this term. Let me stress that Wikipedia is not robust publication, but still the definition provided by the Wikipedia is not applicable in this case:

"Middleware is computer software that provides services to software applications beyond those available from the operating system. It can be described as "software glue". "

I am waiting for a constructive hints what to do except:

• arguing against the specification,
• putting my reputation in danger.