It's kind of six of one, a half dozen of the other, but I think maintaining consistency in the groupId (i.e. org.switchyard) might be less confusing for the end user - especially if they are packaging up their ESB project using maven.
I looked for some examples of how other projects do it - it seems like camel does things similarly to the first example you gave (org.apache.camel, camel-core and camel-spring).
I should just say "I agree with Tom" and leave it at that. :-)
Personally, I prefer the groupId approach. Components are a distinct piece from the core - they have a distinct parent pom, their own repository, etc. Just makes sense from an organization standpoint to have a groupId specific for components.
I'd go with Keith on this one and use the groupId approach also, "component-bean" sounds like using one directory to store all files.