Renamed tags -> capabilityAttributes

[hammar]

Rationale: tags are typically synonymous with labels, that are to some degree "markers" for a feature. We have string enumerations that we can connect to capabilities, and might in the future have even more complex structures. Tags is too simple an analogy. This is used to categorize the entities in question in a manner orthogonal to the subsumption hierarchy; thus "categorization attributes".

In earlier discussions we talked about "classificationProperties" as a name -- this is unfortunate, since "classification" is a term that already carries meaning in the OWL world, and "Property" is a term that is already overloaded with meaning in both OWL and DTDL. So I've here elected more neutral terms. @rszcodronski, would this be palatable to your team?

[hammar]

Oops, seems I renamed tags -> categorizationAttributes, not capabiltyAttributes. My bad on the title of this PR. Anyway, the same reasoning applies, I think. Comments?

[rszcodronski]

categorization makes sense to me as a better word to use instead of classification.

I would prefer to stick with properties since this is DTDL's word for what entities are contained within this structure. When you look at the set of potential entities, they are a list of a bunch of Properties so it makes sense to align on that term to me.

My vote: categorizationProperties

[hammar]

categorization makes sense to me as a better word to use instead of classification.

I would prefer to stick with properties since this is DTDL's word for what entities are contained within this structure. When you look at the set of potential entities, they are a list of a bunch of Properties so it makes sense to align on that term to me.

My vote: categorizationProperties

I guess I can get on board with that. Will implement together with some other outstanding matters on Thursday, and update PR.