Add FDev IDs - two proposals

[Marginal]

First proposal:

• Add "systemId", "systemAddress" and "stationId" as optional fields to commodity/2, outfitting/1 and shipyard/1.
• Add optional "id" to "commodities" array in commodity/2.
• Add optional "id" to "modules" array in outfitting/1.
• Add optional additional "shipIds" array to "message" in shipyard/1.

This is somewhat messy, and will break existing listeners that validate against the schemas until they update (because of the liberal use of "additionalProperties" : false in these schemas) which is rude.

Second proposal:

• Create new commodity/3, outfitting/2 and shipyard/2 schemas, with new "system" and "station" structures to replace "systemName", "stationName".
• Add optional "id" to "commodities" array in commodity/3 (as above).
• Add optional "id" to "modules" array in outfitting/2 (as above).
• Change "ships" in shipyard/2 to be an array of structures.

This produces IMO a cleaner and more logical structure. But existing listeners won;t understand messages in the new schema until they make some small code changes.
Example messages: commodity/3, outfitting/2, shipyard/2.
EDMC branch that prints messages in these proposed new schemas.

[Marginal]

There's also a third potential option (not presented) of new schemas that just send IDs and no textual names. This could be a later step.

[AnthorNet]

OK, I see what the additionalProperties is doing!

[Marginal]

Yes, I'm not sure that the changes to the existing schemas in my first proposal are wise.

Also, the IDs in this PR are incomplete. I'm now documenting IDs at https://github.com/EDCD/FDevIDs