Editorial revisions

[andrea-perego]

• Fixed typo ("statementss") as per @kcoyle 's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dxwg-wg/2019Jan/0195.html
• Added CODE HTML tags to qualified names of classes and properties used in the running text

[agbeltran]

thanks @andrea-perego - I was checking the changes in rawgit and in previous commits, we actually replaced the CODE HTML instances for URLs pointing to the term definitions everywhere in previous editorial changes. Pinging @davebrowning and @dr-shorthair to double-check.

[dr-shorthair]

There was some inconsistency, but I thought @davebrowning had cleaned it up.

Should the mentions in running text be distinguished using a typeface (<code>) or by making them into links?

And if the latter, then we need to be consistent. Here's my proposal:

• within chapter 6, the linked text in the slot next to RDF Class: or RDF Property heading in each table should point to the W3C /ns/ or to the external reference (FOAF and DC)
• all other cross-references within the document, including within chapter 6, should point to the relevant section/fragment within Chapter 6

[davebrowning]

Last week I "fixed" the missing links in the sections that were being changed at the time (and added <code> tags where I was changing something, but not a general sweep of across the document. I suspected then that we'd got somewhat inconsistent and needed to look across the whole but didn't get a chance to look at the rest of the doc on both <code> and link usage. Thanks for doing that @andrea-perego ! Adding the <code> markups do make them stand out.

The 2014 spec also used /ns/ references in Domain: and Range entries, but I think that's not particularly helpful. (See Also consistently has intra-document links). On a quick look at the editors draft there are probably a few other stray references to the /ns/ in other parts of the text, I think (such as some of the intro paragraphs for each class.) My question is - are links to either /ns/ (essentially the ttl file) ever really useful ? It only ever returns the whole file (for me, anyway) whereas a link into a relevant fragment of a doc is much more useful. For me, I'd rather we used useful links where we can find them. What do other people think? [For what it's worth I see multiple different behaviours across recommendations]

To keep it simple though, I agree with @dr-shorthair's proposal that we use internal document links in all cases except the headline RDF Class: or RDF Property: texts in the subsections of Chapter 6, mainly because there's little else to link it too.... (And of course, mark them as <code> when appropriate)

I'd propose we merge this branch, and then do a sweep to add the links. I'm happy to do that, though it'll be next week before i have the time - I'll raise a (presumptive) issue so we don't forget...