I have an entity called #spare_part and this entity has 4 values with the following example synonyms each:
both with synonyms filter, oil level indicator
not_defined with a synonym spare part
only_gear with synonyms valve, seal
whole_gear_box with a synonym complete set of gearbox
I want to be able to handle multiple entities given in the same input and address them later on, if needed. With this purpose I have coded the following in JSON editor:
{
"context": {
"sparepartrequest": "#spare_part.values"
},
"output": {
"generic": [
{
"values": [
{
"text": "You want an offer for the following parts: <?
$sparepartrequest.join(', ') ?>."
}
],
"response_type": "text",
"selection_policy": "sequential"
}
]
}
}
I have created a context variable called sparepartrequest as can be seen from the code lines above. For instance when the user says "I want an offer for a filter and a seal", the output of the bot is the following sentence:
You want an offer for the following parts: both, only_gear.
I don´t want the bot to prompt back the names of the values of the entity #spare_part, I rather want it to store the exact input of the user, for our case which would be filter and seal. So if the bot worked as I wanted it to, the output would look like the following:
You want an offer for the following parts: filter, valve.
Again, I believe that this can be handled with JSON Editor. Thank you !
Use two context variables. sparepartrequest as already done and sparepartrequest_literals as follows:
"sparepartrequest_literals":"<? entities['spare_part'].![literal].join(', ') ?>".
Then, in your text response call it by $sparepartrequest_literals to print the mentioned parts or use $sparepartrequest to refer to the detected values.
Related
Ok, new to RESTapi so not sure if I am using the correct terminology for what I want to ask so bear with me. I believe what I am asking about is nested resources in a service but I want to ask specifically about using it for separating a blob of "closely related" content. It may be easier to provide an example. Let's say I have the following service that could output the following:
/Policy
"data": [ {
"name": "PolicyName1",
"description": "",
"size": 25000,
.... (bunch of other fields)
"specialEnablement": true,
“specialEnablementOptions”: { <-- options below valid only if specialEnablement is true
“optionType”: “TypeII”,
“optionFlagA”: false,
“optionFlagB”: true,
“optionFlagC”: false,
...(bunch of other options here)
}
},
{ . . . }],
The specialEnablementOptions are only used if specialEnablement is 'true'. It is all part of this /Policy service so has no primary key other than the policy "name" (and doesnt make sense to have to generate one) so does not fall under some of the other questions I have been reading about nested resources.
It does make it more readable to separate this set of information since there are 12 or so options but, this is REST so, maybe human readability does not weigh heavily here.
I am being told that, if we do it this way, it makes it more complex to work with during POST/PUT/PATCH commands. Specifically, it is being said in my group that if we do this, we should require two calls....one that creates the policy main information then the user must call a second time to PATCH the specialEnablementOptions (assuming specialEnablement is true). This seems kludgy to me.
I am looking for expert advise on what the best practice is.
My questions:
Does having the specialEnablementOptions nested in this way cause a
lot of complexity. Seems to me that either way we have to verify
that the settings are valid?
Does having the specialEnablementOptions nested in this way require
two calls? In other words, can a user not do a POST/PATCH/PUT for
all the fields including those in the specialEnablementOptions in
one call? We are planning to provide a way for the user to do a
PATCH of just the specialEnablementOptions options without changing
any of the first level for ease of use but is there something that
prevents them from creating or modifying all settings in one call?
Another option is to just get rid of the nested
specialEnablementOptions and put everything at the same level. I
dont have a problem with this but wasn't sure if this was just being
lazy. I dont mind doing this if the consensus is it is the best way
to do it....but I also have a second example that is similar to this
scenario but is a bit more complex where putting everything under the parent level is not really optimal (I will show in the next example)
So, my second example is as follows:
/anotherPolicy
"data": [ {
"name": "APolicyName1",
"description": "",
"count": 123,
"lastModified": "2022-05-17-20.37.27.000000",
[{
"ownerId": 1
"ownerCount": 1818181
"specialFlags": 'ABA'
},
{ . . . }]
},
{ . . . }],
The above 'count' is the total number associated to that policy and then there is a nested resource by owner where the count by owner can be seen..plus maybe other information specific to that owner. The SUM(ownerCount) would equal "count" above it. Does this scenario change any of the answers to the questions above?
I appreciate your help. I found a ton of information and reference on when to use or not use nested endpoints but all the examples seem to orient around subjects that seem like they could easily be separated into two resource...for instance whether to nest /employees under /departments or /comments under /posts. Also, they didn't deal with the complexities of having nested endpoints vs avoiding them. And last, if using nesting is unnecessary as a readability standpoint.
VIA Actions Console, not Dialogflow!
After several days I finally finished to create a Quiz that works like this.
Google Mini says: "What is the capital of France? A) Rome, B) Berlin or C) Paris ?"
In my scene i have two conditions.
scene.slots.status == "FINAL" && intent.params.choosenABC.original == session.params.antwort
AND
!(scene.slots.status == "FINAL" && intent.params.choosenABC.original == session.params.antwort)
So here, these conditions check whether the user says the correct letter coming from the session parameter "antwort".
Everything works smooth as long as the user says "A", "B" or "C".
But how can i compare a condition to what the user says?
In the above example i want the user to be able to say "Rome" or "Berlin" or "Paris" and the condition to check these entries.
Thanks in advance!
You have a number of questions packed in there, so let's look at each.
Does input.params.original exist?
In short, yes. You can see the documentation of the request Intent object and you'll see that there is intent.params.*name*.original. Your question seems to suggest this would work as well.
There is also intent.params.*name*.resolved which contains the value after you take type aliases into account.
I found some variables on a Dialogflow forum...
Those only work if you're using Dialogflow and don't make any sense when you're looking at Action Builder.
How to match
You don't show the possible value of session.params.antwort or how you're setting antwort. But it sounds like it makes sense that you're setting this in a handler. So one thing you could do is to set antwort to the city name (or whatever the full word answer is) and set letter to the letter with the valid reply. Then test both against original to see if there is a match.
But, to be honest, that starts getting somewhat messy.
You also don't indicate how the Intent is setup, or if you're using an Entity Type to capture the answer. One great way to handle this, however, is to create a Type that can represent the answers, and use a runtime type override to set what the possible values and aliases for that value are. Then, you can control exactly what the valid value you will use to compare with will be.
For example, if you create a type named "Answer", then in your fulfillment when you ask the question you can set the possible values for this with something like
conv.session.typeOverrides = [{
name: 'Answer',
mode: 'TYPE_REPLACE',
synonym: {
entries: [
{
name: 'A',
synonyms: ['A', 'Rome']
},
{
name: 'B',
synonyms: ['B', 'Berlin']
},
{
name: 'C',
synonyms: ['C', 'Paris']
}
]
}
}];
If you then have an Intent with a parameter of type Answer with the name answer, then you can test if intent.parameter.answer.resolved contains the expected letter.
Adding a visual interface
Using runtime type overrides are particularly useful if you also decide to add support for a visual selection response such as a list. The visual response builds on the runtime type override to add visual aliases that users can select on appropriate devices. When you get the reply, however, it is treated as if they said the entry name.
I am working on Schema.org Resort schema for a ton of resorts on a travel website and am trying to find the most efficient ways of filling out the schema with regards to amenities.
The current code looks something like this:
"amenityFeature": [
{
"#type":"http://schema.org/LocationFeatureSpecification",
"name":"Spa",
"value":"true"
},
{
"#type":"http://schema.org/LocationFeatureSpecification",
"name":"Internet Access",
"value":"true"
},
{
"#type":"http://schema.org/LocationFeatureSpecification",
"name":"Tennis Courts",
"value":"true"
}
]
My question is, can I write it like this instead to shorten lines of code:
{
"#type":"http://schema.org/LocationFeatureSpecification",
"name":[
"Spa", "Internet Access", "Tennis Courts"
],
"value":"true"
}
When I test it in Google’s Structured Data Testing Tool, it doesn’t give any errors. Here is what it looks like in the SDTT when I write it the short way:
And here is what it looks like if I do it the first/long way:
If I do it the short way, I want to make sure all those items are getting listed as amenities and not just different names for the same amenity. Otherwise, I'll go the long route.
No, each LocationFeatureSpecification represents one feature:
Specifies a location feature by providing a structured value representing a feature of an accommodation as a property-value pair of varying degrees of formality.
Your second snippet would represent one feature with multiple names.
I can't create a queryPattern containing two Text fields, like so:
"parameters": [
{
"name": "text_a",
"type": "org.schema.type.Text"
},
{
"name": "text_b",
"type": "org.schema.type.Text"
}
],
"trigger": {
"queryPatterns": [
"add $org.schema.type.Text:text_b with $org.schema.type.Text:text_a",
"combine $org.schema.type.Text:text_b along with $org.schema.type.Text:text_a"
]
}
This will always result in a failure to match the intent (for example "add something with another").
However, I can use two Color types: If you change "Text" to "Color" in the above, and say "add red with blue" or "combine auburn along with green" then it matches and fires the intent.
I am creating deep-link intents only (i.e., commands, not a back-and-forth dialog), so I don't think DialogFlow will help me?
I suspect that the problem is that AoG is treating text parameters as "greedy", so a second parameter never matches because the first parameter has captured all the text. You don't see this with specific types, because it does more narrow matching for them.
You may actually try to use Dialogflow - it does work for deep linking Intents, although I don't know if it will behave the same way.
I need the user to input his flight number in order to fetch its details for him.
Is there any way to detect and store the flight number (3-4 digits + words) that he entered?
I know that I can create an entity in order to store some parts of the user inputs, but it seems like I have to hard-code values which I want to retrieve, which is not practical.
So, is there any option to make watson automatically detect a part of user input (not limited to numbers).
In your condition section you can put in the following.
input.text.matches('.*?[0-9]{3,4}.*?')
For your output area, go to advanced mode and do the following.
{
"output": {
"text": "You typed a 3-4 digit number. I stored it in Context variable 'found'"
},
"context": {
"found": "<? input.text ?>"
}
}
You can then query the context variable found in your code to do more complex actions on it.
Conversation has been updated since this answer. You can now use input.text.extract() instead of just input.text.
Like so:
"found": "<? input.text.extract('.*?([0-9]{3,4}).*?',1) ?>"