Restructure cost and its subclasses

[LillyG901]

Summary of the discussion

See #1914

Type of change (CHANGELOG.md)

Update

• make cost (and all its subclasses) subclass of process attribute

Workflow checklist

Automation

Closes #1914

PR-Assignee

• 🐙 Follow the Pull Request Workflow
• 📝 Update the CHANGELOG.md
• 📙 Add #'s to term tracker annotation

Reviewer

• 🐙 Follow the Reviewer Guide
• 🐙 Provided feedback and show sufficient appreciation for the work done

[stap-m]

Suggested change

	<http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000112> "An example for variable cost are costs incurred for raw materials (of which more are needed if production is increased).",
	<http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000112> "An example for variable production cost are costs incurred for raw materials (of which more are needed if production is increased).",

Just spotted, that the label in the definition and comment are misleading.

[stap-m]

Suggested change

	<http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000115> "Variable costs are costs that depend on the amount of goods or services produced and which are paid by the producer.",
	<http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/IAO_0000115> "Variable production costs are costs that depend on the amount of goods or services produced and which are paid by the producer.",

[stap-m]

I'd recommend to just mention the classnames that were changed, in this case maybe cost and the first level of children. The classes were not actually restructured but just moved. However, we usually don't mention, what we did (which can be found in the term trackers).

[stap-m]

There is one axiom of social cost which can be deleted without discussion, which is the one to the obsolete class 'economic value'. Seems like we missed to remove it once we made the relation obsolete...

[madbkr]

I started the reasoner (used HermiT) and for me cost and all its subclasses are equivalent to owl:Nothing. Here is the explaination that Protegé offered:

So we have to make more changes if we want to move cost like this.

[stap-m]

Good catch @madbkr

[areleu]

I started the reasoner (used HermiT) and for me cost and all its subclasses are equivalent to owl:Nothing. Here is the explaination that Protegé offered:

So we have to make more changes if we want to move cost like this.

That is a tricky one, but I can imagine this will happen to any other quantity values that are directly converted to process attributes, at least those with the has unit axiom.

[stap-m]

We discussed in #1875 which former quantity values are actually quantities or process attributes. This PR is part of the restructuring. Both quantities and process attributes can be "measured" by quantity values, which are allowed for units. Therefore, I guess the solution is to change the axiomatisation: remove the "has unit" axioms for all process attributes and replace them with has quantity value linking to a corresponding quanity value.

[stap-m]

And the corresponding quantity value would be monetary value.