Just as a URL permits an ordinary user with a web browser to get to an
object, inflections permit an ordinary user to see metadata (without curl
or code).
There's nothing to prevent a server from supporting both the HTTP Accept
header (content negotiation) and inflections. If you can do the one, the
other should be pretty easy.
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Conal Tuohy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am really puzzled by the use of these non-standard "inflexions" as a
> means of qualifying an HTTP request. Why not use the HTTP Accept header,
> like everyone else?
>
>
> On 9 December 2014 at 07:59, John A. Kunze <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > Any Apache server (not Tomcat) can handle the '?' and '??' cases with a
> > few rewrite rules to transform them into typical CGI-like query strings.
> >
> > # Detect ? and ?? inflections and map to typical CGI-style parameters.
> > # One question mark case: ? -> ?show=brief&as=anvl/erc
> > RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} \?
> > RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$
> > RewriteRule ^(.*)$ "$1?show=brief&as=anvl/erc"
> >
> > # Two question mark case: ?? -> ?show=support&as=anvl/erc
> > RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^\?$
> > RewriteRule ^(.*)$ "$1?show=support&as=anvl/erc"
> >
> > So if your architecture supports query strings of the form
> >
> > ?name1=value1&name2=value2&...
> >
> > it can support ARK inflections.
> >
> > I don't believe that the ARK spec and HTTP URIs are fully compatible
> >> ideas.
> >>
> >
> > True. A '?' by itself has no meaning in the URI spec, which means it's
> > also an opportunity to do something intuitive and important with an
> > unused portion of the "instruction space" (of strings that start out
> > looking like URLs). Any URLs (not just ARKs) could support this.
> >
> > The THUMP spec (where inflections really live) will be modified to
> > require an extra HTTP response header to indicate that the server is
> > responding to an inflection and not to a standard URI query string.
> > This could help in the '??' case, which actually could be interpreted
> > as a valid URI query string.
> >
> > -John
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Ethan Gruber wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for the info. I'm glad I'm not the only person struggling with
> >> this.
> >> I'm not entirely sure my architecture will allow me to append question
> >> marks in this way (two question marks is probably feasible, but it
> doesn't
> >> appear that one is). I don't believe that the ARK spec and HTTP URIs are
> >> fully compatible ideas. Hopefully some clearer request parameter or
> >> content
> >> negotiation standards emerge.
> >>
> >> Ethan
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Phillips, Mark <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ethan,
> >>>
> >>> As Mark mentioned we have implemented the ARK inflections of ? and ??
> >>> with
> >>> our systems.
> >>>
> >>> I remember the single ? being a bit of a problem to implement in our
> >>> system stack (Apache/mod_python/Django) and from what I can tell isn't
> >>> possible with (Apache/mod_wsgi/Django) at all.
> >>>
> >>> The ?? inflection wasn't really a problem for us on either of the
> >>> systems.
> >>>
> >>> From conversations I've had with implementors of ARK, the issues
> around
> >>> supporting the ? and ?? inflections don't seem to be related to the
> >>> frameworks issues as other issues like commitment to identifiers, the
> >>> fact
> >>> that ARKs are being used in a redirection based system like Handles, or
> >>> the
> >>> challenges of accessing the item metadata for items elsewhere in their
> >>> system.
> >>>
> >>> I think having a standard set of request parameters or other url
> >>> conventions could be beneficial to the implementation of these features
> >>> by
> >>> others.
> >>>
> >>> Mark
> >>> ________________________________________
> >>> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of
> >>> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2014 8:23 AM
> >>> To: [log in to unmask]
> >>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Functional Archival Resource Keys
> >>>
> >>> This brief exchange on Twitter seems relevant:
> >>>
> >>> https://twitter.com/abrennr/status/296948733147508737
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Mark A. Matienzo <
> >>> [log in to unmask]
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ethan,
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm hoping Mark Phillips or one of his colleagues from UNT will
> respond,
> >>>> but they have implemented ARK inflections. For example, compare:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth5828/
> >>>> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth5828/?
> >>>> http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth5828/??
> >>>>
> >>>> In particular, the challenges posed by inflections are described in
> this
> >>>> DC2014 paper [0] by Sébastien Peyrard and Jean-Philippe Tramoni from
> the
> >>>> BNF and John A. Kunze from CDL.
> >>>>
> >>>> [0] http://dcpapers.dublincore.org/pubs/article/view/3704/1927
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Mark
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Mark A. Matienzo <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>> Director of Technology, Digital Public Library of America
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Ethan Gruber <[log in to unmask]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I was recently reading the wikipedia article for Archival Resource
> Keys
> >>>>> (ARKs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archival_Resource_Key), and
> there
> >>>>>
> >>>> was
> >>>>
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> bit of functionality that a resource is supposed to deliver that we
> >>>>>
> >>>> don't
> >>>
> >>>> in our system, nor do any other systems that I've seen that implement
> >>>>>
> >>>> ARK
> >>>
> >>>> URIs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From the article:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "An ARK contains the label *ark:* after the URL's hostname, which
> sets
> >>>>>
> >>>> the
> >>>>
> >>>>> expectation that, when submitted to a web browser, the URL terminated
> >>>>>
> >>>> by
> >>>
> >>>> '?' returns a brief metadata record, and the URL terminated by '??'
> >>>>>
> >>>> returns
> >>>>
> >>>>> metadata that includes a commitment statement from the current
> service
> >>>>> provider."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Looking at the official documentation (
> >>>>> https://confluence.ucop.edu/display/Curation/ARK), they provided an
> >>>>> example
> >>>>> of http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/tf5p30086k? which is supposed to
> >>>>>
> >>>> return
> >>>>
> >>>>> something called an Electronic Resource Citation, but it doesn't
> work.
> >>>>> Probably because, and correct me if I'm wrong, using question marks
> in
> >>>>>
> >>>> a
> >>>
> >>>> URL in this way doesn't really work in HTTP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, has anyone successfully implemented this? Is it even worth it?
> I'm
> >>>>>
> >>>> not
> >>>>
> >>>>> sure I can even implement this in my own architecture.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe it would be better to recommend a standard set of request
> >>>>>
> >>>> parameters
> >>>>
> >>>>> that actually work in REST?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ethan
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Tod Robbins
> >>> Digital Asset Manager, MLIS
> >>> todrobbins.com | @todrobbins <http://www.twitter.com/#!/todrobbins>
> >>>
> >>>
>
