reconsider usage of omg:complementsGeometry

[mathib]

Current definition says

Relation between one geometry and another that is composed by the first. E.g. a point cloud of a columns laser scan in a high geometric detail complementing a simplified CSG geometry of the same column. Both geometry descriptions are closely related, but not directly derived from each other. The complementing geometry description may also just depict a small part of the entire geometry (e.g. the column header).

This usage is quite similar to the more frequent pattern of survey geometry (e.g. the point cloud) that's converted (manually or semi-automatically) into a simplified volumetric geometry. This relation can already be modelled using omg:isDerivedFromGeometry. TBD