RLS — Inconsistency between PIM and PSM namings

As class names with blanks are not allowed in most programming
languages (or XML defnitions), different class names are used in PIM
and PSM. This should be fixed. One way is to remove blanks from PIM
class names.

In addition to the item pointed out in the summary, some class names have the
¡¥RoLo¡¦ prefix and some does not (issue 13442). In order to resolve these
inconsistencies, the following changes are performed:
„O Remove blanks from PIM class names
„O Remove 'RoLo' prefix from PIM and PSM class names
„O Instead, use global namespace 'RoLo' in place of 'RLS'. As most class
definitions belong to some packages (from issue 12916), two namespaces
will be used for class definitions.
For example, ¡§RoLo Element Specification¡¨ class will be renamed as
¡§ElementSpecification¡¨ or ¡§::RoLo::Architecture::ElementSpecification¡¨ in full
resolution.
However, this change makes descriptions in natural language harder to read. To
make sentences simple, we follow the resolution from #13116 such that
whenever class names are used to indicate its instances, the names are written
in small letters in divided forms with a ¡¥RoLo¡¦ prefix. For example, ¡§xxx is a list of
references to PositionElement class instances¡¨ are rewritten as ¡§xxx is a list of
reference to RoLo position elements.¡¦
There also exist inconsistencies in attribute names (from issue 13998). To
reduce this inconsistency, we will modify attribute names based on the following
rules:
¡E Shorten the attribute names whenever it is possible, but keep it long when
it is not easy to infer the original name. Use the same attribute names across the specification whenever they
indicates the same meanings.
• Make attribute name to be plural when multiplicity of the attribute is able to
be more than 1.
For clarification, we will enclose the names of attributes and methods with a pair
of single quotation marks whenever they appear in natural language sentences.