RFC: Type rename proposals

[jaredcnance]

Feedback on this issue is desired

There are several types that could have better names. We can change the names and deprecate the old ones via inheritance.

Current Type	Description	Proposal(s)	Final
ContextGraph	A graph of all resources and their metadata	ResourceGraph JsonApiResourceGraph JsonApiSchema
ContextGraphBuilder	Constructs the resource graph	ResourceGraphBuilder JsonApiSchemaBuilder
ContextEntity	A json:api resource and its metadata	Resource JsonApiResource ResourceDefinition
DocumentData	The json:api document resource object as defined in the spec	ResourceObject	ResourceObject
JsonApiException .GetError()	Returns the exception as a json:api formatted error object	JsonApiException.GetErrorCollection()
EntityResourceService	...	DefaultResourceService
IEntity...Repository	Used by the resource service to construct and materialize queries	IQueryBuilder
IEntityReadRepository.Get()	Used to get the base IQueryable for which most queries are built from. See #404 (comment)	. GetQueryable(...)
GenericProcessor	When updating relationships, it is helpful to be able to use generic methods even though the generic parameter is different from the controller's generic parameters. The GenericProcessor gets created and then used through a non-generic interface. However, all of this makes what it does a bit confusing. Really, all it is used for is updating relationships. The fact that we chose to do it this particular way should not influence the name.	UpdateRelationshipProcessor PatchRelationshipProcessor

Any other suggestions?

[maurei]

All but the proposal for IQueryBuilder have been processed in #589. We think that the repository layer is more broad than the responsibility as implied by the name IQueryBuilder