Some Deployment tests are unnecessary

[mrnolte]

I am seeing in the deployment log that it is both tested for equivalent classes of owl:Nothing and also for subclasses. However, this is unnecessary as any class is equivalent to owl:Nothing if and only if it is a subclass of owl:Nothing (Think of owl:Nothing as an empty set). Therefore, either check would be enough.

Same goes for owl:bottomObjectProperty.

Here is the log that I mean:

# Classes equivalent to http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Nothing

No issues detected.


## Subclasses of http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Nothing

No issues detected.


## Object properties equivalent to http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#bottomObjectProperty

No issues detected.


## Subproperties of http://www.w3.org/[20](https://github.com/ease-crc/soma/runs/5988129972?check_suite_focus=true#step:9:20)02/07/owl#bottomObjectProperty

No issues detected.

[mpomarlan]

This was done as a "sicher ist sicher" measure -- I/Sebastian were not sure whether the reasoner we would end up using would report subclasses of nothing as subclasses or as equivalent to nothing. (E.g., Konclude reports them as Equivalent to nothing, but some other reasoner could take the other approach)

As far as I know, these are not actually independent calls to the reasoner either. What Konclude calls classification is done once, and then the results are analyzed looking both at reported subclass relations and sets of equivalent classes.