I'm using a few applications in Tomcat, so inflections are much more difficult to implement than content negotiation. I can probably tweak the Apache settings to do a proxypass for inflections by modifying the examples above. I agree with Conal, though. Inflections are puzzling at best and bad architecture at worst, and the sooner the community puts forward a more standard solution, the better. On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 7:21 PM, John Kunze <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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> > > >>> > > >>> > > >