SBVR14 — Relationships Between Definition Concepts and Semantic Formulation Concepts Seem to be Wrong or Missing

ISSUE TITLE: Relationships Between Definition Concepts and Semantic Formulation Concpets Seem to be Wrong or Missing ISSUE DESCRIPTION: The relationships between 'definition' (both intensional and extensional) and 'semantic formulation' (both 'necessity' and 'closed projection') and the 'intension' and 'extension' of a concept in some cases seem to be wrong and other cases missing. - The connections between 'intensional definition', 'necessity' logical formulation (structural rule), 'essential characteristic set' and 'concept' are missing (as discussed above). - The connection between 'definition', 'closed projection' and 'concept' seems ambiguous, and maybe incorrect, as 'closed projection' is usually associated with 'extension' and not directly with 'concept'. Also associating 'closed projection' with 'definition' in general (vs. intensional or extensional definition) seems strange. - The connection between 'extensional definition', some kind of semantic formulation, and extension seemns to be missing.

Deferred to SBVR v1.5 Revision Task Force because the SBVR v1.4 RTF was requested to close before it was finished so the SBVR RTF could be convert to JIRA.