`epo:SubmissionTerm` inheritance is wrong

[csnyulas]

According to the submission term diagram in ePO 4.0.0 epo:SubmissionTerm is a subclass of both epo:ProcedureSpecificTerm and epo:LotSpecificTerm. This is conceptually wrong, since according to the OWL semantics (which will be generated from these UML models) this means that a "epo:SubmissionTerm is a epo:ProcedureSpecificTerm" and also "epo:SubmissionTerm is a epo:LotSpecificTerm", or, in other words, "every submission term is a procedure specific term" and also "every submission term is a specific lot term" as well. In fact the subclass relation should be exactly the opposite, i.e. the epo:ProcedureSpecificTerm and epo:LotSpecificTerm should be subclasses (i.e. specialisations of) epo:SubmissionTerm.

Check if there are no other similar inverse-logic modelling in other parts of the ontology.

[andreea-pasare]

As of ePO 5.0.0, epo:ProcedureSpecificTerm, epo:LotSpecificTerm and epo:ContractSpecificTerm concepts were removed and all term classes inherit directly from epo:Term.
Also, the epo:Term concept was moved at the level of epo:ProcurementElement to include epo:PlannedProcurementPart as well.
Based on the things mentioned, the following model was implemented: