Several terms are used in the different meanings: (input) `parameter`

Related: common-workflow-language/common-workflow-language#775

Section 3.1 defines a term parameter as follows:

A parameter is a named symbolic input or output of process, with an associated datatype or schema. During execution, values are assigned to parameters to make the input object or output object used for concrete process invocation.

That is, in my understanding, a parameter is associated with the schema but a parameter itself does not include the schema.

However, some explanations and definitions in the spec cause conflicts with the above definition or cause confusions.

For example:

• The explanation of inputs field in section 5 says:

  Input parameters include a schema for each parameter ...

  that conflicts with the above definition.

• Section 2.1 defines input parameters but it causes confusion with the above definition.

  The fields of the input object are referred to as "input parameters".

  in which the term field is defined as a name/value pair in the object.
  Of course we can define parameter and input parameter in a different way but it is better to use the consistent definitions.

It would be nice if the spec uses the defined terms consistently.

Start by comparing the definition of “parameter” in Section 3.1 with the “input parameters” discussion in Section 2.1 and the inputs-field explanation in Section 5. Decide on consistent terminology for parameters, schemas, and fields, then update the conflicting specification wording and verify that the affected sections agree.