Add version 3.1.0 schema

[jbarnicle]

Addresses issues #25, #26

[afeld]

Looks good to me! @gregelin @joshuamckenty?

$ diff kwalify/component/v3.0.0.yaml kwalify/component/v3.1.0.yaml
75a76,78
>             desc: |
>               This field will be deprectated in future versions of the schema.
>               Please use control_origins.
76a80,83
>           control_origins:
>             type: seq
>             sequence:
>               - type: str
88a96,98
>             desc: |
>               This field will be deprectated in future versions of the schema.
>               Please use implementation_statuses.
94a105,113
>           implementation_statuses:
>             type: seq
>             sequence:
>               - type: str
>                 enum:
>                   - partial
>                   - complete
>                   - planned
>                   - none
$ diff examples/component_v3.0.0.yaml examples/component_v3.1.0.yaml
14,15c14,19
<   implementation_status: partial
<   control_origin: shared
---
>   implementation_statuses:
>     - partial
>     - planned
>   control_origins:
>     - shared
>     - inherited

[afeld]

Maybe we add a comment or something saying this is deprecated, or at least that implementation_statuses is an alternative?

[jbarnicle]

done

[pburkholder]

I went to the Kwalify project to see if deprecated could be added, so the user could get something back like:

$ kwalify -f kwalify/component/v3.1.0.yaml examples/busted.yaml
examples/busted.yaml#0: WARNING
  - [/] key 'control_origin' is deprecated: "Use control_origins instead"

BUT -- kwalify is hosted in SourceForge, and I didn't have the gumption to try. Still, it would be cool if the kwalify file had something like:

          control_origin:
            type: str
            deprecated: true
            deprecation_message: "Use control_orgins instead"
          control_origins:
            type: seq
            sequence:
              - type: map
                mapping:
                  text:
                    type: str

Is it worth working on? Probably not.

[afeld]

At the very least, we can put something in the description. Kwalify hasn't been updated since 2013, so I'm not convinced it's worth putting a lot of time into...or that it's what we will stick with mid/long-term. I would raise the idea as a feature request, but probably not bother with implementation unless you hear back from the maintainer(s).

[jcscottiii]

LGTM!