- From: Jacob via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 19:29:19 +0000
- To: public-annotation@w3.org
Just to clarify this proposal is focused on the JSON serialization guidelines, is that correct? The pattern would be: Model JSON key oa:hasBody content: oa:hasBodyText text: Is that correct? Regards, Jacob _____________________________________________________ Jacob Jett Research Assistant Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship The Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA (217) 244-2164 jjett2@illinois.edu On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Rob Sanderson <notifications@github.com> wrote: > Regarding the proposal to change to content, this would align us with the > use of as:content on Objects in ActivityStreams. > > Ref: > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Nov/0037.html > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.w3.org_Archives_Public_public-2Dsocialweb_2015Nov_0037.html&d=BQMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=uJ7IktbqswsQNAbHTnjfHnck1MVpmDXvQbjnvCIlqB8&s=s8uoSlxs1bQsExdsnKEYUndy084vRAwXGWoRTk9dRdQ&e=> > PR to update the definition: jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams#244 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_jasnell_w3c-2Dsocialwg-2Dactivitystreams_pull_244&d=BQMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=uJ7IktbqswsQNAbHTnjfHnck1MVpmDXvQbjnvCIlqB8&s=Q0cIs2ZNeOFptpkxy1nIa_Vm9G6Cau-SSmMg4LHTLug&e=> > > — > Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_web-2Dannotation_issues_79-23issuecomment-2D153803874&d=BQMCaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=npggDwlZ6PziBzPBZthSo0f8iGOgRMf9ulO6o4WwfiA&m=uJ7IktbqswsQNAbHTnjfHnck1MVpmDXvQbjnvCIlqB8&s=CRyMA-2qCnnZwblQfjKPTbGSa0MXyzLLc2GvHZ0U_pA&e=> > . > -- GitHub Notif of comment by jjett See https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/79#issuecomment-153838771
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 19:29:21 UTC