DOL — Improvement of definitions and comments in the ontology

(1) when possible rephrase definitions in order to improve ISO 704 compliance,
(2) replace rdf:comment with skos:definition where appropriate,
(3) when appropriate spit definitions into a definition and related explanatory note,
(4) revise some comments as more specifically usage notes
(5) change the label “model” to “realization” in order to avoid potential confusion of “model” in the logic sense and “model” in the engineering sense
(6) address formatting issues

adressed all issues

We addressed all issues.

For example
"AnnotationAssertion(rdfs:comment <http://www.omg.org/spec/DOL/DOL-terms/propagatesToAdjoint> "The subject class denotes a kind of mapping that, if it holds for a translation, also holds for the adjoint reduction."@en)"
was replaced by
"AnnotationAssertion(<http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#definition> <http://www.omg.org/spec/DOL/DOL-terms/propagatesToAdjoint> "subject class denotes a kind of mapping that, if it holds for a translation, also holds for the adjoint reduction"^^xsd:string)"

Another example:
"ObjectPropertyDomain(<http://www.omg.org/spec/DOL/DOL-terms/satisfies> <http://www.omg.org/spec/DOL/DOL-terms/Realization>)"
was replaced by
"ObjectPropertyDomain(<http://www.omg.org/spec/DOL/DOL-terms/satisfies> <http://www.omg.org/spec/DOL/DOL-terms/Model>)"

All of these changes improved the readability of the ontology, but did not change the content of the ontology. The terminological change from "model" to "realization" was necessary in order to synchronise the terminology in the ontology with the terminology in the specification.