corim vs. tagged corim

[nedmsmith]

We have defined corim and xcorim following a convention where these are always tagged. If the parser already expects to operate on corim (xcorim) then it doesn't need a tagged-corim (tagged-xcorim). It just needs corim (xcorim).

We have defined corim to be a tagged-corim which takes us down a path where we would have to define untagged-corm in order to get untagged semantics. Wouldn't it be better to define corim (xcorim) as untagged objects and define 'tagged-corim' and 'tagged-xcorim' as tagged objects?

[nedmsmith]

The CDDL might change to:

tagged-corim = #6.500($concise-reference-integrity-manifest-type-choice) 
$concise-reference-integrity-manifest-type-choice /= #6.501(corim-map)
$concise-reference-integrity-manifest-type-choice /= #6.502(signed-corim)

and

corim = $concise-reference-integrity-manifest-type-choice

Aligning with Issue #154

tagged-corim-map = #6.501(corim-map)
$concise-reference-integrity-manifest-type-choice /= tagged-corim-map
$concise-reference-integrity-manifest-type-choice /= #6.502(signed-corim)