Review all equivalence axioms in ENVO

[cmungall]

We need to review systematically all equivalence axioms / logical definitions in ENVO. We constantly run into issues with these being incorrectly formulated, leading to incorrect inferences, such as dust being a subclass of ice. Sometimes these take a long time to fix, and they are costly to fix on a piecemeal basis.

Just a sample of some issues:

• #1291.
• #782
• #900
• #1014

We can triage this process. Logical definitions that conform to patterns are less likely to be incorrect. But anything that doesn't correspond to a pattern should be considered suspect and reviewed. I will make the first pass at a list.

We also have a habit of getting stuck when issues are brought up. We frequently see long github discussions with many interesting or not directly relevant topics brought up. Instead we need an agreed upon fast and agile SOP. Problematic axioms should be either removed or weakened ASAP. We can make a ticket to re-introduce a stronger axiomatization, but we can't afford to have problem classifications hang around for extended periods while we have long discussions

[kaiiam]

Thanks @cmungall. I've responded about the first issue in https://github.com/EnvironmentOntology/envo/issues/1291#issuecomment-1046662554. I agree it would be good to establish some standardized patterns for how we use EQ axioms.

[pbuttigieg]

Many thanks. To help this along, please generate a checklist of all classes with equivalence axioms in a comment below this one.

We can document stable patterns as we notice them, but the list is the first step.

There will be much to discuss, but let's do that in thr editors' Slack or in meetings so this issue doesnt become cluttered. We can post the outcomes here.