IRC log of rdf-wg on 2013-05-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:57:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
14:57:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:57:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
14:57:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
14:57:58 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
14:57:58 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
14:57:59 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
14:57:59 [trackbot]
Date: 22 May 2013
14:58:03 [gkellogg]
gkellogg has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:04 [AZ]
AZ has joined #rdf-wg
14:58:20 [Guus]
chair: Guus
14:59:03 [pfps]
pfps has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:11 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:19 [ScottB]
ScottB has joined #rdf-wg
15:00:28 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has changed the topic to: RDF WG -- current agenda:
15:00:48 [AZ]
akim, who is here?
15:00:52 [AZ]
Zakim, who is here?
15:00:52 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, AZ
15:00:53 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ScottB, Arnaud, pfps, AZ, gkellogg, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, ivan, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, manu1, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, manu, ericP, mischat
15:00:56 [pfps]
zakim, this is rdf-wg
15:00:56 [Zakim]
sorry, pfps, I do not see a conference named 'rdf-wg' in progress or scheduled at this time
15:01:12 [Guus]
zakim, this will be 73394
15:01:12 [Zakim]
ok, Guus; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
15:01:27 [sandro]
trackbot, start meeting
15:01:28 [pfps]
zakim, who is here?
15:01:28 [Zakim]
SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has not yet started, pfps
15:01:29 [Zakim]
On IRC I see ScottB, Arnaud, pfps, AZ, gkellogg, Zakim, RRSAgent, Guus, ivan, AndyS, davidwood, gavinc, manu1, sandro, trackbot, yvesr, manu, ericP, mischat
15:01:30 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs world
15:01:32 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 73394
15:01:32 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start now
15:01:33 [trackbot]
Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
15:01:33 [trackbot]
Date: 22 May 2013
15:01:51 [AndyS]
zakim, this is 73394
15:01:51 [Zakim]
ok, AndyS; that matches SW_RDFWG()11:00AM
15:02:02 [Zakim]
15:02:06 [AndyS]
zakim, who is on the phone?
15:02:06 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Guus_Schreiber, ??P15, pfps, GavinC, Sandro, [IPcaller], gkellogg
15:02:19 [AndyS]
zakim, IPcaller is me
15:02:19 [Zakim]
+AndyS; got it
15:02:26 [AZ]
Zakim, ??P15 is me
15:02:26 [Zakim]
+AZ; got it
15:02:30 [Guus]
zakim, ??P15 is AZ
15:02:30 [Zakim]
I already had ??P15 as AZ, Guus
15:03:19 [Zakim]
15:03:21 [Zakim]
15:03:22 [Zakim]
15:04:39 [pfps]
i can scribe if necessary
15:05:04 [pfps]
scribenick: pfps
15:05:05 [cgreer]
cgreer has joined #rdf-wg
15:05:32 [Zakim]
15:05:56 [yvesr]
Zakim, ??P30 is me
15:05:56 [Zakim]
+yvesr; got it
15:06:23 [Zakim]
15:06:28 [ivan]
15:06:47 [Souri]
Souri has joined #rdf-wg
15:06:48 [gkellogg]
15:06:52 [AndyS]
15:06:56 [pfps]
scribe: pfps
15:06:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.707.874.aaaa
15:07:08 [pfps]
topic: admin
15:07:08 [cgreer]
zakim, aaaa is me
15:07:08 [Zakim]
+cgreer; got it
15:07:26 [pfps]
subtopic: minutes
15:07:46 [pfps]
proposed: accept minutes of last meeting minus one resolution (see agenda)
15:07:49 [AZ]
"There are some format problems with the chatlog" it says
15:08:12 [pfps]
PROPOSED: accept minutes of last meeting minus one resolution (see agenda)
15:08:38 [pfps]
minutes looked acceptable to me
15:08:56 [pfps]
RESOLVED: accept minutes of last meeting
15:09:43 [AndyS]
So we are opening issue-131 then? It's just "raised" currently.
15:09:55 [PatH]
PatH has joined #rdf-wg
15:10:00 [pfps]
guus: resolution about blank nodes as graph names should be withdrawn
15:10:19 [sandro]
guus: I'll make issue-131 "open"
15:10:20 [Zakim]
15:10:28 [manu]
zakim, I am ??P7
15:10:28 [Zakim]
+manu; got it
15:10:29 [Zakim]
15:10:36 [Arnaud]
I fixed the formatting errors in the minutes of May 15
15:11:10 [pfps]
guus: resolution about blank nodes from last week is withdrawn and issue-31 is opened to track the question
15:11:21 [manu]
zakim, who is making noise?
15:11:32 [Zakim]
manu, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Guus_Schreiber (14%), AndyS (100%), davidwood (9%)
15:12:02 [pfps]
subtopic: actions
15:12:26 [pfps]
pfps: I pushed quite a few actions to pending review - they all should be done by recent edits to Concepts or Semantics
15:12:56 [gavinc]
Close ACTION-260
15:12:56 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-260 Gather data for resolving the turtle feature-at-risk..
15:13:51 [sandro]
close action-264
15:13:51 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-264 Find the history and suggest phrasing for Concepts.
15:13:52 [pfps]
Close ACTION-264
15:13:52 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-264 Find the history and suggest phrasing for Concepts.
15:14:01 [pfps]
sandro: action 264 is obsolete
15:14:24 [pfps]
guus: please record status in action note
15:14:34 [pfps]
Topic: Concepts and Semantics LC drafts
15:14:43 [sandro]
sandro has left #rdf-wg
15:14:49 [sandro]
sandro has joined #rdf-wg
15:15:01 [pfps]
Pat: Semantics needs some work to account for comments from peter
15:15:42 [pfps]
Peter: I looked over Concepts and it looks in good shape, modulo one issue
15:16:25 [pfps]
Guus: ISSUE-131 and language tags, language tags first
15:17:01 [sandro]
topic: Language Tags
15:17:52 [pfps]
Andy: proposal is to define a value space for rdf:langString and do some more fixups
15:17:55 [pfps]
15:17:56 [sandro]
andy: rdf:LangString becomes a normal data type except for ...
15:17:58 [sandro]
15:18:08 [Guus]
ack pfps
15:18:09 [PatH]
15:18:26 [pfps]
peter: what's the difference?
15:18:50 [pfps]
andy: currently abstract syntax doesn't correspond with what systems do
15:18:54 [sandro]
andy: in the current rdf-concepts the abstract syntax messes around with the language tags
15:19:23 [pfps]
peter: the proposal is to do something different for language tags in the abstract syntax
15:19:53 [pfps]
andy: yes, the abstract syntax doesn't mess with language tags
15:20:06 [pfps]
andy: then it doesn't have to be built in
15:20:16 [pfps]
peter: I don't understand how this can be
15:20:17 [gavinc]
(The abstract syntax DOES mess with language tags today)
15:20:52 [Zakim]
15:20:53 [sandro]
pfps: The way to make langstring not built in, you have to make it not-special.
15:21:10 [Zakim]
15:21:14 [pfps]
peter: rdf:langString is special the only way to make it not built-in is to make it completely non-special
15:21:33 [sandro]
PatH: The weird part is that it has two strings in its lexical space instead of on.
15:21:37 [sandro]
15:21:46 [pfps]
peter: the proposal is then to make it half-special?
15:22:07 [pfps]
andy: and also to remove lowercasing of language tags in the abstract syntax
15:22:15 [pfps]
sandro: what is the difference?
15:22:19 [pfps]
15:22:25 [Guus]
ack sandro
15:22:39 [pfps]
sandro: what are the testcases? number of triples? entailment? anything else??
15:22:56 [ivan]
15:22:56 [trackbot]
ISSUE-131 -- How can one create an RDF dataset without being a web server? -- open
15:22:56 [trackbot]
15:23:03 [Guus]
ack PatH
15:23:08 [pfps]
peter: it appears to me that the number of triples will change but no entailments will
15:23:11 [sandro]
{ <a> <b> "chat"@fr, "char"@FR }
15:23:20 [sandro]
that's two triples in andy's proposal
15:23:33 [ericP]
15:23:47 [pfps]
pat: several issues: 1/ upper vs lowercase 2/ unspecial 3/ built-in
15:24:15 [pfps]
pat: we could not require rdf:langString in RDF entailment
15:24:21 [gavinc]
sandro, that's two triples in raptor, 4store, jena, rdflib, ...
15:24:37 [ericP]
q+ to add minor issues around case-preserving and impl burden of BCP-sensitive normalization
15:24:51 [Guus]
ack pfps
15:24:52 [pfps]
pat: I don't care about 1, we can't do 2, and I don't care about 3
15:25:50 [pfps]
peter: the hardest thing from the point of Semantics is to handle language tags specially
15:26:14 [pfps]
andy: isn't there special stuff for language tags?
15:26:17 [pfps]
peter: not really
15:26:21 [Guus]
ack ericP
15:26:21 [Zakim]
ericP, you wanted to add minor issues around case-preserving and impl burden of BCP-sensitive normalization
15:26:44 [pfps]
eric: implementers care about case
15:27:00 [gavinc]
It isn't one triple! It's two triples, and I can't see any implementations that make it one :P
15:27:06 [pfps]
sandro: rdf 1.0 is confusing
15:27:21 [gavinc]
I agree, RDF 1.0 says it's one.
15:27:23 [pfps]
andy: rdf 1.0 is clear that language tags are lowercased
15:27:30 [gavinc]
But everyone doesn't.
15:27:39 [pfps]
andy: and there is a test case
15:27:53 [PatH]
andy is muffled hard to hear
15:27:57 [AZ]
In RDF 1.0: "Plain literals have a lexical form and optionally a language tag as defined by [RFC-3066], normalized to lowercase"
15:28:12 [sandro]
sandro: I don't think the language in the RDF 1.0 clear at all.
15:28:13 [pfps]
eric: we could say normalize to BCP recommended form (which would be annoying)
15:28:17 [ivan]
15:28:53 [pfps]
andy: i would like there to be two triples
15:29:09 [gavinc]
4store is... amusing in this area ;)
15:29:12 [sandro]
"Note: The case normalization of language tags is part of the description of the abstract syntax, and consequently the abstract behaviour of RDF applications. It does not constrain an RDF implementation to actually normalize the case."
15:29:13 [pfps]
andy: if there is one, then there is the issue of what surface form to keep
15:29:47 [Zakim]
15:29:53 [manu]
zakim, I am ??P7
15:29:53 [Zakim]
+manu; got it
15:29:53 [pfps]
andy: but it is required to act as if it did normalize
15:30:47 [ericP]
15:30:52 [pfps]
sandro: so in practice it's like 1 and 01 - sparql let's implementations vary
15:31:21 [pfps]
andy?: the RDF test cases are quite specific
15:31:39 [pfps]
15:31:43 [gavinc]
One reason why it "works" in RDF 1.0 is that XML says that language tags can only be BCP 47 valid language tags, which includes case... but is not the SAME case as the abstract syntax expects
15:31:48 [sandro]
andy: SPARQL weasles around this by saying you can normalize on lading.
15:31:52 [sandro]
15:31:54 [PatH]
15:32:13 [pfps]
15:32:15 [Guus]
ack PatH
15:32:21 [sandro]
sandro: I think we need to do something wealy like that in RDF as well.
15:32:48 [pfps]
pat: where is the SPARQL test case that give two results, for 1 and 01
15:33:04 [pfps]
andy: it depends on where and whether entailment is in force
15:33:06 [sandro]
andy: In a FILTER then value matching applies; in graph matching 1.0 and 1.00 look different.
15:33:22 [pfps]
pat: in practice then normalizing is wrong
15:33:32 [ericP]
-> Plain literals have a lexical form and optionally a language tag as defined by [RFC-3066], normalized to lowercase.
15:33:47 [pfps]
sandro: no, systems can normalize on input, so you can't figure out what is going on
15:33:47 [sandro]
sandro: So what about SPARQL UPDATE? Insert 1.0 does it match 1.00 ???
15:33:49 [PatH]
15:33:57 [ericP]
15:34:03 [pfps]
guus: can we make progress?
15:34:35 [gavinc]
I am happy with the proposal as is.
15:34:43 [pfps]
sandro: compatability says we be permissive
15:35:06 [ericP]
15:35:10 [pfps]
15:36:02 [ericP]
+1 to Andy's #2
15:36:09 [pfps]
guus: second part of the proposal? any changes?
15:36:26 [ericP]
+1 to the *spirit* of Andy's #2
15:36:40 [gavinc]
It already IS an exceptional case.
15:36:40 [pfps]
pat: this doesn't fit into the standard datatype model, so it has to be exceptional
15:37:11 [gavinc]
+1 to defining the value space of langString
15:37:15 [pfps]
andy: this is all about the value space of lang string
15:37:42 [AndyS]
sec 8:: IL(E)= < sss, ttt > ==> IL(E)= < sss, lowercase(ttt) >
15:37:50 [pfps]
pat: langString is a special case, and there is no proposal to make it not so
15:38:00 [sandro]
PROPOSED: The value space of rdf:langString is the set of pairs (string, LC-lang) where LC-lang is a lowercase language tag.
15:38:14 [ivan]
15:38:16 [davidwood]
15:38:17 [Souri]
15:38:18 [ericP]
15:38:18 [sandro]
+1 (but this doesn't settle everything about langString)
15:38:23 [gkellogg]
15:38:30 [gavinc]
+1 (someone else gets to go see if langMatchs is unhappy with that)
15:38:31 [Guus]
15:38:33 [AndyS]
15:38:52 [gavinc]
15:38:53 [gavinc]
15:40:09 [AZ]
In RDF 1.1 Concepts: "Language-tagged strings have the datatype IRI No datatype is formally defined for this IRI because the definition of datatypes does not accommodate language tags in the lexical space. The value space associated with this datatype IRI is the set of all pairs of strings and language tags."
15:40:52 [AndyS]
concepts : 3.3 and notes on sec 5
15:42:51 [davidwood]
15:43:48 [pfps]
-1, because this proposal doesn't match the discussion
15:44:01 [pfps]
eric: let's make them two triples
15:44:15 [pfps]
sandro: no, the proposal is to make the number of triples ambiguous
15:44:44 [AZ]
The proposal makes <s> <p> "aaa"@EN and <s> <p> "aaa"@en two triples
15:45:14 [pfps]
eric: so a SPARQL query would give one triple in 2004, but now would be either one or two
15:45:51 [pfps]
eric: the motivation for allowing two triples is that implementations work this way
15:46:08 [pfps]
eric: are there people who are counting on these two triples?
15:46:14 [sandro]
PROPOSED: The value space of rdf:langString has the language in lower case; the lexical form MAY be converted to lower case (as RDF 1.0 says, but not everyone does).
15:46:30 [pfps]
eric: if there is enforcement then no one may care
15:46:36 [davidwood]
15:46:42 [sandro]
15:47:10 [pfps]
s/language/language tag/
15:47:22 [sandro]
PROPOSED: The value space of rdf:langString has the language tag in lower case; in the lexical form, the language tag MAY be converted to lower case (as RDF 1.0 says, but not everyone does).
15:47:50 [gavinc]
BCP 47 says that en-US is a BCP language tag, and en-us isn't :P
15:47:59 [sandro]
eric: BCP-47 says language strings are case insensitive.
15:48:04 [pfps]
sandro: bcp27 says that language tags are case insensitive
15:48:27 [pfps]
15:49:03 [davidwood]
Section 2.1.1 of BCP 47: "At all times, language tags and their subtags, including private use
15:49:03 [davidwood]
and extensions, are to be treated as case insensitive"
15:49:49 [davidwood]
15:49:52 [sandro]
15:49:54 [gkellogg]
15:49:57 [ivan]
15:49:57 [gavinc]
15:49:58 [AndyS]
15:50:01 [PatH]
15:50:02 [pfps]
-0, because this is a change that I don't think needs to be made
15:50:09 [yvesr]
15:50:13 [Souri]
15:50:20 [sandro]
RESOLVED: The value space of rdf:langString has the language tag in lower case; in the lexical form, the language tag MAY be converted to lower case (as RDF 1.0 says, but not everyone does).
15:50:21 [AZ]
15:50:22 [sandro]
15:50:31 [ericP]
-> "At all times, language tags and their subtags ... are to be treated as case insensitive: there exist conventions for the capitalization of some of the subtags, but these MUST NOT be taken to carry meaning.
15:50:34 [Souri]
question: if I use { ?x :attrName "color"@en-us} in SPARQL what is the expected output if data presented was: _:b1 :attrName "color"^^EN-us
15:50:36 [ericP]
15:50:48 [pfps]
david: I'll put this into concepts
15:51:25 [sandro]
action: david to implement the langString resolution in rdf-concepts AND ENJOY IT
15:51:25 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-265 - Implement the langString resolution in rdf-concepts AND ENJOY IT [on David Wood - due 2013-05-29].
15:51:30 [gavinc]
ericP, Yep :D
15:51:40 [pfps]
guus: section 3 of proposal
15:51:42 [PatH]
souri, it has to match in that case.
15:51:55 [gavinc]
However the ABNF is case sensitive, and has lovely rules like sgn-BE-NL
15:52:21 [pfps]
andy: section 1 loosens requirements for RDF processors
15:52:45 [pfps]
andy: there are no conformance issues being raised
15:53:08 [PatH]
15:53:13 [pfps]
sandro: syntax processors need to be able to handle the special syntax for rdf:langString
15:53:32 [pfps]
andy: Semantics says that processors must recognize rdf:langString
15:53:36 [Souri]
thx Pat, so every RDF implementation is required to at least keep it in the form _:b1 :attrName "color"^^en-us, but optionally, in addition, it may also store _:b1 :attrName "color"^^EN-us.
15:54:01 [pfps]
pat: we now have something special that is being stuck in Semantics for rdf:langString
15:54:08 [pfps]
andy: but that's already in Section 8
15:54:16 [pfps]
sandro: it already was a test case
15:54:26 [sandro]
So RDF Simple Entailment: <a> <b> "chat"@FR ENTAILS <a> <b> "chat"@fr
15:54:29 [Zakim]
15:54:43 [pfps]
andy: D-entailments include rdf:langString
15:54:51 [pfps]
guus: time
15:54:57 [pfps]
pat: I don't care either way
15:55:27 [pfps]
guus: part 3?
15:56:10 [Guus]
ack sandro
15:56:18 [Souri]
15:56:48 [Guus]
ack PatH
15:56:50 [AndyS]
PROPOSAL: remove "other than rdf:langString and xsd:string"
15:57:03 [sandro]
agreed observation: <a> <b> "chat"@FR ENTAILS <a> <b> "chat"@fr IF you recognize rdf:langString. Whether that's in RDF Simple Entailment isn't decided yet.
15:57:10 [AndyS]
PROPOSAL: remove "other than rdf:langString and xsd:string" in "RDF processors are not REQUIRED to recognize any datatype IRIs other than rdf:langString and xsd:string"
15:57:26 [sandro]
15:57:28 [pfps]
15:57:29 [Souri]
15:57:42 [pfps]
15:57:48 [PatH]
15:58:02 [Souri]
15:58:05 [yvesr]
15:58:07 [ivan]
15:58:08 [AZ]
15:58:09 [gkellogg]
15:58:15 [AndyS]
(section 7 of MT)
15:58:19 [pfps]
pfps: there is all this stuff for rdf:langString so we should require it
15:58:20 [AZ]
actually +0.5
15:58:31 [AndyS]
15:58:33 [gavinc]
15:58:56 [PatH]
15:59:21 [gavinc]
xsd:strings are NOT for binaries
15:59:31 [pfps]
pfps: there was a discussion last week about using strings for binaries, and this change validates that very, very, very bad usage
15:59:31 [sandro]
pfps: The reason to keep it: discussion last week on xsd:string for binaries. This change invaldates that.
16:00:02 [sandro]
pfps: If you allow RDF implemntations to treat strings as ininterpreted, then you're allowing zeros in them.
16:00:13 [sandro]
andy: By you can put NUL into integers!
16:00:28 [sandro]
pat: It's just an ill formed integer
16:00:37 [AZ]
BTW, currently, Simple semantics implies: {<s> <p> "chat"@FR} does not entail {<s> <p> "chat"@fr}
16:00:53 [sandro]
<a> <b> "\u0000"^^xs:int is a syntactically valid RDF triple.
16:01:14 [Zakim]
16:01:24 [AndyS]
16:01:30 [sandro]
guus: Not comfortable accepting this resolution yet.
16:01:35 [pfps]
guus: there does not appear to be obvious consensus
16:02:00 [pfps]
pfps: it would be nice to have some consensus forming via email
16:02:12 [pfps]
guus: can we have discussion of 131 via email this week
16:02:24 [ivan]
16:02:40 [pfps]
guus: we want LC drafts of Concepts and Semantics by mid-June
16:03:08 [pfps]
andy: W3C team please remind us what happens if we miss the end of the extension
16:03:14 [pfps]
ivan: we will be in deep trouble
16:03:25 [AndyS]
ack me
16:03:35 [gavinc]
Turtle? :(
16:03:46 [pfps]
guus: we need to resolve these issues next week
16:04:16 [pfps]
pat: these issues need to implemented in documents, so they need to be implemented
16:04:32 [pfps]
ivan: if Semantics isn't ready by the end of next week then I can't review it
16:04:36 [AndyS]
ack ivan
16:04:38 [pfps]
guus: is Semantics close?
16:04:54 [pfps]
pfps: there are a few things that need to be resolved
16:05:15 [pfps]
pat: I hope that these can be fixed on Friday
16:05:22 [AZ]
I will review Semantics
16:06:03 [pfps]
guus: the initial review can be done next week
16:06:11 [pfps]
ivan: i will do my best
16:06:30 [gavinc]
16:06:40 [pfps]
guus: adjourn
16:06:46 [ericP]
wHaT AbOuT It?
16:06:55 [PatH]
thanks antoine
16:06:56 [pfps]
16:07:16 [pfps]
gavin: we are trying to wrap things up
16:07:29 [pfps]
sandro: it's not a complete blocking issue
16:07:51 [pfps]
gavin: test cases is waiting on a resolution
16:08:26 [PatH]
+1 to whatever y'all are talking about.
16:08:40 [pfps]
sandro: i want to have a chance to look at it first
16:08:46 [pfps]
gavin: please comment on the mailing list
16:09:06 [pfps]
pat: can we get a summary
16:09:31 [pfps]
sandro: we should follow the W3C recommendation
16:09:38 [pfps]
ivan: I don't buy that
16:09:38 [Zakim]
16:10:06 [pfps]
gavin: OK I'll write a message
16:10:19 [Zakim]
16:10:30 [sandro]
s/i want to have a chance to look at it first/I don't think everyone has looked at it/
16:11:11 [pfps]
gavin: I haven't seen arguments on the positions
16:11:23 [pfps]
guus: adjourn !
16:11:24 [Zakim]
16:11:26 [Zakim]
16:11:28 [Zakim]
16:11:30 [Zakim]
16:11:33 [Zakim]
16:11:37 [Zakim]
16:11:38 [Zakim]
16:11:42 [Guus]
trackbot, end meeting
16:11:42 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:11:42 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Guus_Schreiber, pfps, GavinC, Sandro, gkellogg, AndyS, AZ, Ivan, Arnaud, davidwood, yvesr, Souri, +1.707.874.aaaa, cgreer, manu, PatH,
16:11:46 [Zakim]
... EricP
16:11:50 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:11:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:11:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:11:51 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
16:11:51 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: david to implement the langString resolution in rdf-concepts AND ENJOY IT [1]
16:11:51 [RRSAgent]
recorded in