Should a dedicated class be introduced to distinguish "activities classified with GAMSO vs. activities classified with GSBPM" ?

[tfrancart]

The document reads:

Finally, two properties are needed to describe how an Activity classified with GAMSO relates to a ProductionActivity classified with GSBPM

coos:ProductionActivity corresponds to all activities that are classified on GSBPM (and a formal equivalence could be written to define this).
However there is no such corresponding class to assign a class to activities typed with GAMSO. Hence, the range of coos:uses is defined on coos:Activity, which includes ProductionActivity, so nothing prevents to assert that a GSBPM activity coos:uses another GSBPM activity.

Either :

1. there is a need to strongly enforce the distinction between ProductionActivities and non-production activities, in which case another subclass should be introduced
2. Or coos:supports and coos:uses are defined very broadly for all activities, in which case their domain/range could be coos:Activity.