From ESIP study:
Very similar axiomatizations are used for defining other entities, including ’Close pack ice’, ’Compact pack ice’, ’Open pack ice’, ’Very close pack ice’ and ’Very open pack ice’ – see Table 1 first column for a complete list. All of these axioms used an equivalent class relationship, but two – ’Bergy water’ and ’Open water’ – used subclass relationships, e.g., as follows.
‘Bergy water’ ⊑ ∃hasAttribute.(IceConcentration ⊓ ∃hasAttributes.(∃hasValue{′0.05′∧∧xsd:double} ⊓ mean) ⊓ ∃hasAttributes.(∃hasValue{′0.025′∧∧xsd:double} ⊓ standardDeviation))
We posit that the use of subclass relationships in these two cases may be a modeling error.
From ESIP study:
Very similar axiomatizations are used for defining other entities, including ’Close pack ice’, ’Compact pack ice’, ’Open pack ice’, ’Very close pack ice’ and ’Very open pack ice’ – see Table 1 first column for a complete list. All of these axioms used an equivalent class relationship, but two – ’Bergy water’ and ’Open water’ – used subclass relationships, e.g., as follows.
‘Bergy water’ ⊑ ∃hasAttribute.(IceConcentration ⊓ ∃hasAttributes.(∃hasValue{′0.05′∧∧xsd:double} ⊓ mean) ⊓ ∃hasAttributes.(∃hasValue{′0.025′∧∧xsd:double} ⊓ standardDeviation))
We posit that the use of subclass relationships in these two cases may be a modeling error.