Clarification regarding 'has input'/'has output'

[PhiBabs935]

In the domain of construction, the distinction is drawn between 'fresh concrete' and 'hardened concrete'.

Fresh concrete (or 'plastic concrete') refers to the portion of concrete in its freshly mixed state after its ingredients--cement, construction aggregates (sand/gravel/crushed stone), water--are combined together. In this state the concrete is moldable and pliable. Hardened concrete is the result of the portion of concrete setting and hardening.

Fresh concrete and hardened concrete are what we would call 'phase sortals' to use philosopher verbiage. My question is:

Is it correct usage of the has input/has output properties to say that qua fresh concrete, a portion of concrete X is the input of the setting and hardening process, and that qua hardened concrete X is also the output of that process?

To use a different example: when a car undergoes maintenance at the garage to fix an issue, is it correct to say that the car is both input to and output of the maintenance process?

[alanruttenberg]

Based on CCO's definition, it would be fine to say that the car was both input and output of the process. In the case of your fast or hardened concrete, there seem to be two possibilities, depending on what your ontological commitment is. If you think the concrete maintains identity as it undergoes the phase transition, then one would say that "fresh" and "hardened" were qualities of the concrete. You still have to decide if there's a single quality that changes type, or two distinct qualities, with the first ceasing to exist as the second comes into existence. In any case, it would be reasonable to also say that the single quality is both input and output, though the changing type is difficult to express in OWL. If two distinct qualities, then one can be the input and one the output. It is an axiom of BFO that if a quality participates in a process then its bearer does, so the concrete instance would participate as well.
If you think that the two concretes are distinct instances, then one is the input and the other is the output. In that case the quality story still holds but there would be two qualities because there would be two bearers.

There are no qua-individuals in BFO. The distinction you are looking for is captured by the different qualities/quality types and your choices about identity.

[PhiBabs935]

Thanks. This is very helpful. I didn't mean to suggest actually reifying qua-individuals.