Re: Semantic Review

> It would not be, I guess, although I don't think that this wrinkle is
> completely worked out.  That is, it might be possible to allow this but I'm
> not sure. 

Yes it seems like a corner case.
Related cases would be ones where we had small finite transitive properties 
defined explicitly. 

It seems somewhat arbitrary to disallow such ontologies, but on the other hand 
they are probably sufficiently far from the mainstream that an arbitrary 
ruling them out (i.e. the current text with a supporting test case) may be 
the easiest path. Any text I think would need to addressing intension versus 
extension - a topic which we decided not to open up.

Jeremy