Do we want to standardize the external interface details?

Added on behalf of @sauer & @yoav.hollander

The current assumption is the method signature will be in the language, but how about things like (say) C++ type binding and field names?

@yoav.hollander expressed the need for that, to make it easier for users to move between OSC2.0 tool suppliers

@pmai agreed with the need, but suggested maybe this should be an additional standard (per target language)

Suggestion: Yes, but later