consider requiring formal descriptions for subclasses

[justin2004]

Many subclasses don't formally differentiate themselves from their parent class.

e.g.

cco:GeopoliticalEntityBorder is a subclass of cco:GeospatialBoundary but cco:GeopoliticalEntityBorder does not have a formal definition that distinguishes it from cco:GeospatialBoundary. The only thing that distinguishes it from its parent class is human-only readable text.

By formal definition I mean conditions (expressed using some owl axioms) that must be met for an instance to be a member of the class.

Here is an example --

Before:

Notice that its Descriptions are the same as its parent class (nothing additional is added).

After:

Now it has a Description that adds something to distinguish it from its parent class.

I am not saying that the formation description I added is exactly what cco:GeopoliticalEntityBorder needs, thought it might be close, but it would be a better class if it had a formal description that differentiates it from its parent class, right?

[justin2004]

another example:

shouldn't cco:LegalInstrument be referenced in the definition of cco:ActOfLegalInstrumentUse?
that would be a slam dunk.

[neilotte]

@justin2004 This is a good observation but it seems to suggest a more sweeping approach to the axiomatization of classes in CCO. For this reason, I'm converting it to a discussion. Please create a separate issue to preserve the comment regarding ActOfLegalInstrument Use, and if you can add a candidate re-phrasing of the definition, that would be very helpful. Thanks!