Add enumeration for `component_derivation_type`

The attribute `measured_compound_derivation_type` (can be renamed if necessary) is likely to be an important part of the MIFC standard, denoting of a value is analytical, calculated, inferred/estimated, sourced from literature, labelled data, etc. As such I think it should be a required field.

See the [FDC SR legacy csv export's](https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-datasets/FoodData_Central_sr_legacy_food_csv_2018-04.zip) `food_nutrient_derivation.csv` file with a longer list of possibilities (79). Some of those could probably be broken up with extra additional supporting fields to capture other metadata. For example we may want to have another source field (e.g. `measured_compound_derivation_source`) for if the data was from literature or external source to say where it was from doi or name of institution perhaps? Other metadata fields like specific retention factors uses/not used for concentration adjustments).

For the moment the enumeration could look something like the following:

```
analytical
calculated (break this down into from other foods and from a linear regression etc)
literature sourced (this could also just be analytical or another type which is sourced from elsewhere)
inferred/estimated (from ingredient list/recipe, foods physical composition, another/similar foods etc)
label claim
assumed zero
```

Could also break it down to have a field from if the measured_compound value is original or if it's externally sourced. Not sure how that would fit with calculated/inferred values. Much more to be done here. Could use additional expertise.

Start by reviewing the proposed measured_compound_derivation_type attribute and the food_nutrient_derivation.csv reference linked in the issue. Resolve the allowed derivation values, whether the field is required, and whether supporting source or metadata fields are needed; the work is done when the standard has an agreed enumeration and scope.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.