Problem: existing ARK inflections ? and ?? have not been adopted widely, for reasons that include
- difficulty in detecting just It can be hard for servers to detect a terminal '?' in servers (as different from the absence of a query string. It is in fact impossible in Tomcat, needing and requires rewrite rules in Apache).
- unlike '...??' (legal URL), '...?' is not a "legal" URL, so software libraries don't pass it through
- Although '?' is intuitive and language-neutralagnostic, but perhaps it 's can also be puzzling to some people.
- The metadata to be returned was only vaguely defined (mostly by example) metadata returned,.
- The non-standard metadata syntax use (ANVL) , and only was non-standard and largely defined by example
...
- .
...
- as before, '??' requests kernel elements plus any persistence statement
- '??' easier to implement than '?' (the latter being impossible to detect in Tomcat)
- '?' may be supported by older implementations (briefer record)
- ... or should '?' be made identical to '??' ?
2019.08.05 more discussion of collapsing existing ? and ?? into just ??
2019.09.16 proposal for a new, explicit word-based inflection: ?info
- ?info requests metadata
- ?info required, but spec continues to reserve '?' and '??' as optional synonyms
- ?info requests anvl/erc, but the spec permits (as always) alternate formats
- continues to use THUMP conventions with parenthesized args
- ?info equivalent to ?info()
This is a small adjustment to the spec that doesn't quite specify how to request alternate formats, but cracks open the door to work that we can complete, not in the spec, but in the AITO context. An example of that might be the THUMP request:
?info()as(application/json)
Proposed solution discussions, in reverse chronological order
2019.11.04 a different proposal for the new ?info inflection
...
A great example to follow would be the A data citation roadmap for scholarly data repositories.
2019.09.16 proposal for a new, explicit word-based inflection: ?info
- ?info requests metadata
- ?info required, but spec continues to reserve '?' and '??' as optional synonyms
- ?info requests anvl/erc, but the spec permits (as always) alternate formats
- continues to use THUMP conventions with parenthesized args
- ?info equivalent to ?info()
This is a small adjustment to the spec that doesn't quite specify how to request alternate formats, but cracks open the door to work that we can complete, not in the spec, but in the AITO context. An example of that might be the THUMP request:
?info()as(application/json)
2019.08.05 more discussion of collapsing existing ? and ?? into just ??
2019.07.15 Proposed: suppress '?' inflection (let it be optional), leaving just the '??' inflection
- as before, '??' requests kernel elements plus any persistence statement
- '??' easier to implement than '?' (the latter being impossible to detect in Tomcat)
- '?' may be supported by older implementations (briefer record)
- ... or should '?' be made identical to '??' ?