Report: loosen multiple_equivalent_classes check

[matentzn]

Resolves #733

• docs/ have been added/updated
• tests have been added/updated
• mvn verify says all tests pass
• mvn site says all JavaDocs correct
• CHANGELOG.md has been updated

This is a proposal based on what we started discussing in #733 but I modified it slightly to follow my personal ideal. Of course this was never discussed, and I am happy to revise:

1. relax the multiple_equivalent_class check to WARN level and exclude "covering axioms" (OR OR OR) from the check altogether. Reducing the WARN level is because I think that asserting logical equivalence between named classes should either be discouraged altogether (this is then tested with ROBOT reason though), or we should be more permissive when there are two of them. The covering axiom argument is discussed in the ticket.
2. Add a new check, multiple_logical_definitions to ensure that no one has two equivalent class axioms with intersections in it. That should always be discouraged.

[beckyjackson]

It looks like you only updated the docs, not the queries. Can you please:

• Update robot-core/src/main/resources/report_queries/multiple_equivalent_classes.rq to match multiple_equivalent_classes.md
• Add robot-core/src/main/resources/report_queries/multiple_logical_definitions.rq to match multiple_logical_definitions.md

It seems like this test should have failed because of the missing multiple_logical_definitons.rq. That might be another issue to open.

[matentzn]

Oops, sorry! I guess I thought the queries would magically materialise themselves from the docs. :D

[jamesaoverton]

It's almost magic. There's this Makefile: https://github.com/ontodev/robot/blob/master/docs/Makefile

[beckyjackson]

I think these two names are a bit too close to each other and might cause confusion:

multiple_equivalent_classes vs. multiple_equivalent_class_definitions

I don't have a better proposal though so... maybe I'll just have to live with it.

Two more things and I think this is in good shape:

• Make sure to update this line with the correct rule name
• I've kept the report profile in alphabetical order, so can we move this new check to above multiple_equivalent_classes?
  Thank you!

[matentzn]

Thanks @beckyjackson

Ideally the other rule would have been renamed to something more specific, but its better to not rename rules I think. Its ok! 80%, good enough I think :D