Clarify that Trace/Meter are associated with Instrumentation Scope (#…

…2276)

* Clarify that Trace/Meter are associated with Instrumentation Scope

This is a slightly different take on open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#2203

Instead of renaming instrumentation library to instrumentation scope everywhere
this PR suggests targetted editing of wording of the Trace/Meter obtaining API
to allow not just instrumentation library but other instrumentation scopes to be
used as a parameter.

This change does not force renaming of API parameters and is not a breaking change.
We consider it a clarification of usage to match the intent that we had for the "name"
field.

If this PR is accepted there will be a follow up PR that will suggest to rename
InstrumentationLibrary* messages in OTLP proto to InstrumentationScope* message.
Such a change will not be a breaking change for the OTLP wire format and is acceptable.

If this PR is accepted we will also close open-telemetry/opentelemetry-specification#1236
since it will be no longer necessary. The logger name will be recorded as the
instrumentation scope. This clarification will be a follow up PR that clarifies the
behavior in https://github.com/open-telemetry/oteps/blob/main/text/logs/0150-logging-library-sdk.md

specification/common/attribute-naming.md

@@ -148,8 +148,8 @@ Attribute names that start with `otel.` are reserved to be defined by
 OpenTelemetry specification. These are typically used to express OpenTelemetry
 concepts in formats that don't have a corresponding concept.
 
-For example, the `otel.library.name` attribute is used to record the
-instrumentation library name, which is an OpenTelemetry concept that is natively
+For example, the `otel.scope.name` attribute is used to record the
+instrumentation scope name, which is an OpenTelemetry concept that is natively
 represented in OTLP, but does not have an equivalent in other telemetry formats
 and protocols.