Closed nittka closed 11 years ago
+1.
I even couldn't find the definition, why this should be an error.
It is not part of the ttl specification. An "error" marker from the editor does not necessarily mean error with respect to the specification (otherwise configuring the error level would make no sense). Back when we started discussing the editor functionality it seemed reasonable not to allow multiple definitions of the same subject within a file, as usually you would want all the information about a subject in one place.
I agree with you that the data is more readable when all informations are at one place. But files, which come from others and are more a less unchangeable or derive from conversion tools, contain these duplicate subjects very often. These files, e.g. owl definitons, just accompany my data, but I don't work with them, so I don't need this kind of validation at this place.
I also suggest the duplicate subject check should be an optional validation, but not an error.
The next release will have the level configurable (including "no validation").
will this part of 1.0.1?
Is fixed in 1.0.1. I will close this ticket once you have "finalized" the release.
can we have this as an info per default, not as an error?
Currently duplicate subject definitions (same URI) within a file are marked as errors. However, they do not break any editor functionality. Hence, it should be possible to adjust the error level as for other validations.