Its seems like Bing Spell Check API does not work as I excepted.
A lot of mistakes are ignored...
For example:
"lets go to the see and then to gfgdf." response: "flaggedTokens": []
"lets blhblh to the sea" response: "flaggedTokens": []
Where: "lets go to the see" response:
{
"flaggedTokens": [
{
...
"suggestions": [
{
"suggestion": "let's",
}
]
},
{
...
"suggestions": [
{
"suggestion": "sea",
}
]
}
],
"_type": "SpellCheck"
}
Can I do something to get more reliable results?
Thanks
It's worst on my side...
I always got the same result:
{
"_type": "SpellCheck",
"flaggedTokens": []
}
If somebody happens to kown how to prevent that I would like to know.
I guess that's maybe about migrating to Azure. Maybe thoses endpoints are not functionning correctly now.
Related
So when I try to call calculateroute.json, I'm getting a NGEO_ERROR_GRAPH_DISCONNECTED error with no further information.
Here's my example call: https://route.api.here.com/routing/7.2/calculateroute.json?app_id=<APP_ID>&app_code=<APP_CODE>&waypoint0=geo!-34.0144128,151.1121957&waypoint1=geo!-33.875455,151.207583&mode=fastest;car;traffic:enabled&departure=2019-11-11T22:27:30
Obviously I've removed our App ID and App Code from that call :).
{
"_type": "ns2:RoutingServiceErrorType",
"type": "ApplicationError",
"subtype": "NoRouteFound",
"details": "Error is NGEO_ERROR_GRAPH_DISCONNECTED",
"additionalData": [
{
"key": "error_code",
"value": "NGEO_ERROR_GRAPH_DISCONNECTED"
}
],
"metaInfo": {
"timestamp": "2019-11-08T00:43:18Z",
"mapVersion": "8.30.102.150",
"moduleVersion": "7.2.201944-5674",
"interfaceVersion": "2.6.74",
"availableMapVersion": [
"8.30.102.150"
]
}
}
Any ideas?
I've tried looking through the docs but it seems I've done everything right and certainly it has worked for us hundreds/thousands of times before.
Indeed, I see the default Routing API does not find a direct route between the start and end waypoints. If you use our advanced Fleet telematics API, it does actually calculates the route.
https://fleet.api.here.com/2/calculateroute.json?app_id=<APP_ID>&app_code=<APP_CODE>&waypoint0=geo!-34.0144128,151.1121957&waypoint1=geo!-33.875455,151.207583&mode=fastest;car;traffic:enabled&departure=2019-11-11T22:27:30
Please use the advanced API if the standard API does not return results.
I would like to apply a road restriction using Fleet Telematics API. But everytime I try to use example from the docs, I am getting 400 response. Is this because I am sending parameters incorrectly or it works only for paid plans? I am currently freemium.
HERE example says that overlay_spec needs to be send as a JSON string parameter. Probably that's my issue. Can anyone help me construct proper curl command?
Here is what I am using now:
curl -X GET \
'http://cre.api.here.com/2/overlays/upload.json?app_id=MY_APP_ID&app_code=MY_APP_CODE&map_name=OVERLAYNA&overlay_spec=%5B%0A%20%20%7B%20%22op%22%3A%22override%22%2C%0A%20%20%22shape%22%3A%5B%5B50.10765%2C8.68774%5D%2C%5B50.10914%2C8.68771%5D%5D%2C%0A%20%20%22layer%22%3A%22LINK_ATTRIBUTE_FCN%22%2C%0A%20%20%22data%22%3A%7B%22VEHICLE_TYPES%22%3A%220%22%7D%0A%20%20%7D%2C%0A%20%20%7B%20%22op%22%3A%22create%22%2C%0A%20%20%22shape%22%3A%5B%5B50.10937%2C8.68422%5D%2C%5B50.10807%2C8.68525%5D%2C%5B50.10737%2C8.68387%5D%5D%2C%0A%20%20%22data%22%3A%7B%22NAMES%22%3A%22ENGBNDemo%20Road%22%7D%0A%20%20%7D%2C%0A%20%20%7B%20%22op%22%3A%22override%22%2C%0A%20%20%22shape%22%3A%5B%5B50.10937%2C8.68422%5D%2C%5B50.10807%2C8.68525%5D%2C%5B50.10737%2C8.68387%5D%5D%2C%0A%20%20%22layer%22%3A%22TRUCK_RESTR_FCN%22%2C%0A%20%20%22data%22%3A%7B%22VEHICLE_TYPES%22%3A%22truck%22%2C%20%22WEIGHT_RESTRICTION%22%3A%223300%22%7D%0A%20%20%7D%0A%5D'
Could you please retry your request. Looks like a temporary outage. We tried and was able to get the below response for your above request.
Request:
http://cre.api.here.com/2/overlays/upload.json?map_name=OVERLAYNA&overlay_spec=%5B%7B%22op%22:%22override%22,%22shape%22:%5B%5B50.10765,8.68774%5D,%5B50.10914,8.68771%5D%5D,%22layer%22:%22LINK_ATTRIBUTE_FCN%22,%22data%22:%7B%22VEHICLE_TYPES%22:%220%22%7D%7D%5D&storage=readonly
Response:
{
"layers": [
"LINK_FC3",
"LINK_ATTRIBUTE_FC3",
"TRUCK_RESTR_FC3",
"ROAD_ADMIN_FC3",
"ROAD_GEOM_FC3"
],
"meta": [
{
"layerId": "LINK_FC3",
"lastUpdateTimeStamp": 1542030162597
},
{
"layerId": "LINK_ATTRIBUTE_FC3",
"lastUpdateTimeStamp": 1542030162624
},
{
"layerId": "TRUCK_RESTR_FC3",
"lastUpdateTimeStamp": 1542030162711
},
{
"layerId": "ROAD_ADMIN_FC3",
"lastUpdateTimeStamp": 1542030162843
},
{
"layerId": "ROAD_GEOM_FC3",
"lastUpdateTimeStamp": 1542030162964
}
],
"response_code": "201 Created"
}
I set up my intents using this intent schema:
{
"intents": [
{
"intent": "StartIntend"
},
{
"intent": "AMAZON.YesIntent"
},
{
"intent": "AMAZON.NoIntent"
}
]
}
My sample utterances look like this (it's german):
StartIntend Hallo
StartIntend Moin
StartIntend Guten Tag
Why does the Amazon Developer Console generate the following request, when I use the utterance "Yes" or "Ja"?
{
"session": {
"sessionId": "SessionId...",
"application": {
"applicationId": "amzn1.ask.skill...."
},
"attributes": {},
"user": {
"userId": "amzn1.ask.account...."
},
"new": true
},
"request": {
"type": "IntentRequest",
"requestId": "EdwRequestId...",
"locale": "de-DE",
"timestamp": "2017-02-17T21:07:59Z",
"intent": {
"name": "StartIntend",
"slots": {}
}
},
"version": "1.0"
}
Whatever I enter, it always is using the intend StartIntend.
Why is that? What have I forgotten / what have I done wrong?
The schema and utterance look correct.
I tried duplicating what you are seeing by performing the following steps:
Copied them as-is into a new skill on my account
Selected the North America region on the Configuration page.
Set the lambda to point to an existing lambda that I have. For testing purposes, I just need a valid ARN. I'm going to ignore the response anyways.
Then entered "Yes" into the service simulator
It indeed sent the Lambda the AMAZON.YesIntent.
So I conclude that there's nothing with the data you posted.
I tried entering Ja which resulted in the StartIntend, but I guess I would expect that since Ja is not "Yes" in North America.
Have you set the region to Europe, and entered a Lambda for the Europe region?
I talked about it with the Amazon Support. After some experiments it turned out, you have to write "ja" in lowercase. It seems to be a bug in the simulator itself.
When creating the skill in the Alexa Skills Kit, you need to choose the correct language i.e. German, see screenshot below.
Everything else seems to be correct.
I would like to add to add a custom extension to my Schedule resource.
In my app, Schedule have visit motives (reasons). I know there's a list of classified appointments / encounter reasons but I would like to use mine.
I have something like this :
{
"resourceType":"Schedule",
"identifier":"logical_id",
"type":"schedule_speciality",
"actor":{
"practioner_id":"identifier",
"practioner_name":"practioner name"
},
"external_id":{
"extension":[
{
"url":"http://api.test.com/fhir/schedule/external_id",
"valueIdentifier":"external_id"
}
]
},
"visit_motives":{
"extension":[
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive1"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive2"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive3"
}
]
},
"practice_id":{
"extension":[
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/schedule/practice_id",
"valueIdentifier":"practice_id"
}
]
}
}
I'm not sure about this part :
"visit_motives":{
"extension":[
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive1"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive2"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive3"
}
]
}
Is it correct to add an extension this way ? There are always multiple visit motives for a specific schedule so I have to list them.
I also have seen this kind of things :
"visit_motives": {
"coding": [
{
"system": "https://api.test.com/fhir/ValueSet/schedule#visit_motives",
"code": "visit_motive1"
}
]
}
Which one is the correct one or am I wrong ?
There are several issues here:
It seems odd to capture a "reason" on a schedule. A schedule says when a particular clinician or clinic or other resource is available. E.g. "Dr. Smith takes appointments Mon/Wed/Fri from 1pm-4pm". So if you were to capture a reason on the resource, it would reflect "Why does Dr. Smith have a schedule?" Typically reasons are captured for an individual Appointment. That's the resource that reserves a particular slot for a planned visit. And Appointment already has an element for reason where you're free to use your own codes or just send text.
You have extensions to convey identifiers, but Schedule already has an element for identifiers. Why would you use extensions instead of the standard element? Note that you can use the "system" and/or "type" components to differentiate different kinds of identifiers.
You're sending "identifier", "type", "name", etc. as simple strings - but they're complex data types, so you need to communicate the child elements
actor is of type Reference - that means you need to point to the Practitioner resource. You can't send the properties in-line. (If the Practitioner only exists in the context of the Schedule, you could use the "contained" approach which would use an internal reference, but containment doesn't seem to make sense in this use-case.
The URL for your extension contains ValueSet, which isn't correct - extensions are all structure definitions. Also, there shouldn't be a # symbol in the URL.
Your syntax for extensions is incorrect. You can't introduce new properties in FHIR. The property name for all extensions is just "extension". You differentiate by the URL. So your syntax should be:
{
"resourceType":"Schedule",
"id":"logical_id",
"extension": [
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/StructureDefinition/schedule-visit_motive",
"valueString":"vist_motive1"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/StructureDefinition/schedule-visit_motive",
"valueString":"vist_motive2"
},
{
"url":"https://api.test.com/fhir/StructureDefinition/schedule-visit_motives",
"valueString":"vist_motive3"
}
],
"identifier": [
{
"system": http://api.test.com/fhir/NamingSystem/external_id",
"value": "external_id"
}
{
"system": http://api.test.com/fhir/NamingSystem/practice_id",
"value": "practice_id"
}
]
"type": {
"coding": {
"system": "http://somewhere.org/fhir/CodeSystem/specialties",
"code": "schedule_speciality"
},
"text": "Some text description of specialty"
},
"actor":{
"reference": "http://myserver.org/fhir/Practitioner/12345"
"display": "Dr. smith"
}
}
I have been researching Firebase as an alternative to the recently deprecated Dropbox Datastore API. I read the articles about structuring data, but I’m still a little unclear.
I have a bunch of users:
users
- name
- email
...and each user has three database “tables”, aircraft, entries, and customFields.
aircraft
- name
- category
- make
entries
- flightDate
- departure
- destination
customFields
- name
- type
So would my Firebase data structure look something like this?
{
“users”: {
“bob”: {
“name”: …
“email”: …
},
“sally”: {
“name”: …
“email”: …
}
},
“aircraft”:{
???
},
“entries”:{
???
},
“customFields”:{
???
}
}
Thanks in advance.
Are you familiar with OOP? Each "table" is an object. Personally I would do something as follows. Since I don't understand what you're trying to achieve with the database and their objects, this may not be correct:
{
"user": {
"name": "bob",
"aircraft": {
"name": "name"
},
"entries": {
"flightdate": "27/05/2015"
}
}
}
Think in objects, not tables. Think parent and child.
But in your example, if each object (user, aircraft, entries etc.) was plurals, you can treat them as a "table", it would just be an array of objects:
{
"aircrafts":[
{
"id":1,
"name": "name"
},
{
"id":2,
"name": "name"
}
]
}
Edit: My first example was if each user had an aircraft, in retrospect it was silly, but my point still stands.