Align question answering tasks with sub-domains
As pointed out by @thomwolf in #2255 we should consider breaking with the pipeline taxonomy of `transformers` to account for the various types of question-answering domains:

> `question-answering` exists in two forms: abstractive and extractive question answering.
> 
> we can keep a generic `question-answering` but then it will probably mean diferrent schema of input/output for both (abstractive will have text for both while extractive can use spans indication as well as text).
> 
> Or we can also propose to use `abstractive-question-answering` and `extractive-question-answering` for instance.
> Maybe we could have `question-answering-abstractive` and `question-answering-extractive` if somehow we can use a for a completion or search in the future (detail).
> Actually I see that people are more organizing in terms of general and sub-tasks, for instance on paperwithcode: https://paperswithcode.com/area/natural-language-processing and on nlpprogress: https://github.com/sebastianruder/NLP-progress/blob/master/english/question_answering.md#squad
> 
> Probably the best is to align with one of these in terms of denomination, PaperWithCode is probably the most active and maintained and we work with them as well.
> Maybe you want to check with a few QA datasets that this schema make sense. Typically NaturalQuestions, TriviaQA and can be good second datasets to compare to and be sure of the generality of the schema.
> 
> A good recent list of QA datasets to compare the schemas among, is for instance in the UnitedQA paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00178

Investigate which grouping of QA is best suited for `datasets` and adapt / extend the QA task template accordingly.