Revisit axiom for class Material

[fabianneuhaus]

Material is defined as
'portion of matter' and ('has characteristic' some 'behavioral material property') and ('has quality' some 'intensive quality') and ('output of' some process)

The 'output of some process' part of the definition seems problematic. E.g., if Hydrogen is used as a material in a manufacturing process, it itself is not the output of some process. (Unless you count the big bang, but in this case, the requirement seems superfluous, since in this wide sense, everything is the output of some process.)

[webhart]

Thanks @fabianneuhaus for bringing this up. The intention of the axiom is to account for the fact that material specifications (like standards or datasheets) typically use three perspectives to describe a material: its composition/structure (meant to be addressed by 'intensive quality'), its performance (meant to be addressed by 'behavoiral material property') and the production processs (meant to be addressed by 'process').
Example: a cast iron of type GJL 250 should thus be something that:

1. (composition/structure) is iron and has graphite in lamelar shape (the L in GJL)
2. (performance) has a strength of 250 MPa (the 250 in GJL 250)
3. (production process) is a cast product (the G in GJL)

We would like to encourage implementors of the material taxonomy to adhere to these perspectives, which reflect the materials science "process-structure-property" mantra. This is the reason for the "base axiom" mentioned above. Please let me know what you think.