Follow naming conventions for Composite and Claims XIAMPolicy

[csantanapr]

What does this PR do?

Follow naming conventions for Composite and Claims XIAMPolicy

Motivation

Found out that this is the only composite from the package not following the convention for naming Composite Resources (XR)

More

• [x] Yes, I have tested the PR using my local account setup (Provide any test evidence report under Additional Notes)

• [ ] Yes, I have added a new example under examples to support my PR

• [ ] Yes, I have updated the docs for this feature

• [ ] Yes, I have linked to an issue or feature request (applicable to PRs that solves a bug or a feature request)

Note:

• Not all the PRs require examples and docs
• We prefer small, well tested pull requests. Please ensure your pull requests are self-contained, and commits are squashed

For Moderators

• [ ] E2E Test successfully complete before merge?

Additional Notes

[nabuskey]

IAM policy compositions are not meant to be claimed, they are meant to be part of another composition. Thus it doesn't follow the naming convention.

[nimakaviani]

I dont think it hurts for them to follow the naming convention tho. any particular concerns around having them named similarly?

[nabuskey]

Yeah that's fine, but the XRD needs not updated for supporting claims.

[csantanapr]

@nimakaviani @nabuskey PTAL when you have a chance I addressed the review feedback Removed the claim capability