Consider the package naming rule for autoware.core and autoware_common

[kenji-miyake]

As previously discussed in https://gitlab.com/autowarefoundation/autoware.auto/AutowareAuto/-/issues/108, the packages that might be released should have a prefix to be named globally unique.

Since the packages that will be put in this repository might be released, we should decide how to name them.
Also considering the Core/Universe architecture, there would be for example trajectory_follower of Universe and trajectory_follower of Core, therefore it's reasonable to add a prefix to Core packages.

IMO. the candidates of the prefix are autoware_ or aw_.
For the following reasons, I would prefer aw_.

• To keep the package names short.
  • autoware_auto_ is too long.
• To avoid conflicts between the existing packages.
  • Some packages are already named autoware_.
• AW is a well-known abbreviation of Autoware.
  • The Autoware Foundation is called AWF.

FYI, I think what packages are included in autoware_common would be like the following:

• autoware_lint_common (a common lint settings)
• autoware_utils (like https://github.com/ros2/rcutils)
• lanelet2_extension
• autoware_auto_cmake
• autoware_auto_testing
• etc.

[kenji-miyake]

The result of Tier IV's internal discussion.

As our proposal, we'll:

• Name Core/Common packages as autoware_*
  • autoware_auto_* will be autoware_* except for msgs
• Rename existing autoware_* packages in Universe as different names to avoid confusion
  • autoware_state_monitor -> driving_state_monitor,
    operation_state_monitor, ad_service_state_monitor or so
  • autoware_error_monitor -> system_error_monitor
  • autoware_utils -> tier4_autoware_utils or move to autoware_common?
  • etc.