The 3 concepts related to subsumption of this value set have a definition, which ends with a bracketed addendum. This addendum meant to clarify the meaning, in fact obscures it:

is-a: --> ... (i.e. include child codes)

descendant-of --> ... (i.e. include child codes)

generalizes --> ... (e.g. include parent codes)

The first two above are an "i.e.", pretending to be the short meaning of the definition, and they are identical.

The last one is an "e.g.", and despite that, is closer to be a short meaning of the definition of "generalizes".

My point is that these bracketed expressions raise more questions than they solve.

Each of the 3 definitions has a perfectly clear meaning without these trailers. So I suggest to remove the bracketed text from each of the 3 definitions.