COMMONS13 — The definition of constituent, and of the property hasConstituent needs additional refinement

We've said that hasMember is distinct from hasConstituent, but the actual definitions are not necessarily obviously different to users. The definition of hasConstituent changed after the original ontology was submitted, and the notion of Constituent as a class could be used to support either members or constituents, even though the properties in question are disjoint.

It is likely that we need to find a different "word" or "phrase" to describe elements of a composite that are not necessarily distinguishable from one another, and revise the ontology accordingly.

The definition of constituent, and of the property hasConstituent needs additional refinement

This issue should be merged with COMMONS13-36 and the two addressed together, since they raise similar issues.

We deferred COMMONS13-36 due to the need to test a potential change with example data, thus this companion issue is being deferred as well.