Java doc for Verifier Type

dmn-verifier-app/src/main/java/de/unikoblenz/fgbks/dmn/core/models/VerifierType.java

@@ -16,53 +16,80 @@ import org.camunda.bpm.dmn.engine.DmnDecision;
 import org.slf4j.LoggerFactory;
 
 public enum VerifierType {
+  /** Detecting rules which have an identical input, i.e. are redundant. */
   Identical("Checking for identical rules.", IdenticalVerifier.class, true, true, false),
+  /**
+   * Detecting individual rules which are subsumed by other rules, i.e. they are not necessary. For
+   * example, rules containing wildcards often render more specific rules unnecessary due to
+   * subsumption.
+   */
   Subsumption(
       "Checking for rules, which subsume other rules.",
       SubsumptionVerifier.class,
       true,
       true,
       false),
+  /**
+   * Detecting rules which are not identical, but still semantically equivalent. Here, our tool can
+   * verify if there exist multiple rules which use synonyms as inputs and are therefore equivalent,
+   * based on synonym relations via Wordnet.
+   */
   Equivalent(
       "Checking for semantically equivalent rules.", EquivalentVerifier.class, true, false, false),
+  /** Detecting whether there are any overlaps in rule conditions. */
   Overlap("Checking for overlapping rules.", OverlappingVerifier.class, true, true, false),
+  /**
+   * Detecting whether there are any missing business rules, i.e. if there are rules missing for
+   * expected inputs.
+   */
   Missing("Checking for missing rules.", MissingVerifier.class, true, false, false),
+  /** Checking wether ranges can be combined to simplify decision tables. */
   PartialReduction(
       "Checking for partial reduction of rules (combination).",
       PartialReductionVerifier.class,
       true,
       false,
       false),
+  /**
+   * Detecting rules which will always be activated together, but have differing or contradicting
+   * conclusions. For example, rules which will be activated together must not yield that a customer
+   * is both credit worthy, and not creditworthy, as this is logically inconsistent.
+   */
   Interdeterminism(
       "Checking for rules that are activated together but have different conclusions.",
       InterdeterminismVerifier.class,
       false,
       false,
       false),
+  /** Same as {@link VerifierType#Identical}, including a multi table view. */
   MultiTableIdentical(
       "Checking for identical rules in multiple tables (identical outcome column).",
       MultiTableIdenticalVerifier.class,
       true,
       true,
       true),
+  /** Same as {@link VerifierType#Overlap}, including a multi table view. */
   MultiTableOverlapping(
       "Checking for overlapping rules in multiple tables (identical outcome column).",
       MultiTableOverlappingVerifier.class,
       true,
       true,
       true),
+  /** Same as {@link VerifierType#Subsumption}, including a multi table view. */
   MultiTableSubsumption(
       "Checking for subsumptions in multiple tables (identical outcome column).",
       MultiTableSubsumptionVerifier.class,
       true,
       true,
       true),
+  /** Same as {@link VerifierType#Equivalent}, including a multi table view. */
   MultiTableEquivalent(
       "Checking for equivalent rules in multiple tables (identical outcome column).",
       MultiTableEquivalentVerifier.class,
       true,
       false,
       true),
+  /** Same as {@link VerifierType#PartialReduction}, including a multi table view. */
   MultiTablePartialReduction(
       "Checking for partial reduction of rules in multiple tables (identical outcome column).",
       MultiTablePartialReductionVerifier.class,