I called the following http request to the Geocoding endpoint of the Here API, with a free form address entry and language parameters, such as:
https://geocode.search.hereapi.com/v1/geocode?q=Tubdispanser+2+Belarus&lang=en-US&apiKey={API_KEY}
The parameters are:
The address: q = "Tubdispanser 2 Belarus"
Language: lang = "en-US"
The API response is the following:
{"items":[{"title":"Тубдиспансер 2, Minski rayon, Minskaya voblasts', Belarus","id":"here:af:streetsection:KRpXCVKK0uoNU4Le3JvXDD:CggIBCCU4sPZAhABGgEyKGQ","resultType":"houseNumber","houseNumberType":"PA","address":{"label":"Тубдиспансер 2, Minski rayon, Minskaya voblasts', Belarus","countryCode":"BLR","countryName":"Belarus","state":"Minskaya voblasts'","county":"Minski rayon","city":"Minski rayon","street":"Тубдиспансер","houseNumber":"2"},"position":{"lat":53.9567,"lng":27.64356},"access":[{"lat":53.95679,"lng":27.6433}],"mapView":{"west":27.64203,"south":53.9558,"east":27.64509,"north":53.9576},"scoring":{"queryScore":1.0,"fieldScore":{"streets":[1.0],"houseNumber":1.0}}}]}
The result is different from the one given by Here We Go online browser. Does Here We Go browser use a different endpoint?
Thank you.
Given the additional information provided by OP in comments, it appears that the location returned by HERE WeGo webapp refers to the same place as the result from the Geocode API with, notably, the following differences:
The coordinates decimal precision slightly differs
The address is formatted differently, e.g. the result from the geocoder also contains the "region" information (voblast of Minsk)
The reason of this differences is that, as #leopectus hinted, the search from the HERE WeGo webapp actually uses the *Places Autosuggest API. It uses the following endpoint:
https://places.api.here.com/places/v1/autosuggest
HERE WeGo may use a different version of the API as well as additional parameters. As such you may not always get the exact same results.
Related
Is there a way to get the list of all the versions of a specific resource created in FHIR store. I have used the following call,
<FHIR_URL>/<resource-type>/<resource-id>/_history
but its not returning response
If I add version to this url:
<FHIR_URL>/<resource-type>/<resource-id>/_history/<version>
then it only shows that particular version of the resource, but all the versions of a specific resource are required, is there a way to get this?
When in doubt, I always try the reference-implementations.
(all GET requests below)
http://wildfhir4.aegis.net/fhir4-0-1/Patient/example/_history
https://vonk.fire.ly/R4/Patient/pat1/_history
http://hapi.fhir.org/baseR4/Patient/616330/_history?_count=50
I got each systems Patient-Fhir-Logical-Id ("example", "pat1", "616330") by using the search function, and picking a random Patient. The Search function is as simple as /Patient/? and no query string values.
While always subject to change and "re doing the seed data", the aegis example above (today) is returning multiple rows of history for a single patient.
If AWS does not work "mostly the same" as the 3 reference implementations, I would submit a bug report.
But based on your examples, it seems to fall in line with the reference implementation examples above and the HL7 documentation below.
https://build.fhir.org/http.html#history
I am using Google's Geocoding API using the component filtering.
To validate the zip code in a specific country I use the following call for example:
https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/geocode/json?components=postal_code:94301|country:USA
I want to add another component to indicate the state. According to the documentation I can do it using the "administrativeArea".
I couldn't get it to work.
For example, calling the API with the zip code 94301 and state "Arizona" should return with no values, while the state "California" should return the relevant address.
I tried:
https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/geocode/json?components=postal_code:94301|country:USA|administrativeArea=Arizona
You are using administrativeArea=Arizona in components filtering. Please note that web service should use administrative_area=Arizona according to the documentation.
https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/geocoding/intro#ComponentFiltering
The following components may be used to influence results, but will not be enforced:
route matches the long or short name of a route.
locality matches against locality and sublocality types.
administrative_area matches all the administrative_area levels.
When I execute the following request
https://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/geocode/json?components=administrative_area%3AArizona%7Cpostal_code%3A94301%7Ccountry%3AUS&key=MY_API_KEY
I get the response
{
"results":[
],
"status":"ZERO_RESULTS"
}
You can also see this in Geocoder tool:
https://developers-dot-devsite-v2-prod.appspot.com/maps/documentation/utils/geocoder/#in_administrative_area%3DArizona%26in_postal_code%3D94301%26in_country%3DUS%26options%3Dtrue
https://developers-dot-devsite-v2-prod.appspot.com/maps/documentation/utils/geocoder/#q%3D%26in_country%3DUS%26in_administrative_area%3DCalifornia%26in_postal_code%3D94301
I hope this helps!
Given a REST api.
I want to learn what media types I can set in the Accept header.
How should I this?
I know I could do a random
GET http://some.api.com/
Accept:flying/elephants
and hope for a 406 with a body that has the correct acceptable media types.
Is there a better way?
In theory, API could indicate supported Content Types via HTTP OPTIONS
Usually, API offers either
Documentation
Specific resource of supported Accept-header values.
Also (as you might know), Accept-header values are usually bound to IANA defined MIME types
One issue with this is any URI within the API can respond with different media types. It's very common to have different endpoints in the API return different content types.
You could use multiple wildcard requests to probe for support.
You can start with Accept: */* and then application/* text/* */json */xml etc. You would receive a non-exhaustive list, but you'd get the big ones and the the preferred ones.
There's other weird edge cases. For example OData allows you to specify a $format parameter in the URL to define the response type. This overrides the accept header. Thus every format is it's own URI.
It'd be cool if APIs made more use of the alternate link relationship (http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#rel-alternate), i think that would be the most appropriate. That combined with the type attribute of the link would let you know all the formats for any resource you retrieve. Again it would be specific to each URI though.
Coming from a lot of frustrating times with WSDL/Soap, I very much like the REST paradigm, but am trying to solve two basic problems in our application, before moving over to REST. The first problem relates to the lack of an interface document. I think I finally see how to handle this situation: One can query his way down from a top-level "/resources" resource using various requests of GET, HEAD, and OPTIONS to find the one needed resource in the correct hypermedia format. Is this the idea? If so, the client need only be provided with a top-level resource URI: http://www.mywebservicesite.com/mywebservice/resources. He will then have to do some searching and possible keep track of what he is discovering, so that he can use the URIs again efficiently in future to do GETs, POSTs, PUTs, and DELETEs. Are there any thoughts on what should happen here?
The other problem is that we cannot use descriptive URLs like /resources/../customer/Madonna/phonenumber. We do have an implementation of opaque URLs we use in the context of a session, and I'm wondering how opaque URLs might be applied to REST. The general problem is how to keep domain-specific details out of URLs, and still benefit from what REST has to offer.
The other problem is that we cannot use descriptive URLs like /resources/../customer/Madonna/phonenumber.
I think you've misunderstood the point of opaque URIs. The notion of opaque URIs is with respect to clients: A client shall not decipher a URI to guess anything of semantic meaning from it. So a service may well have URIs like /resources/.../customer/Madonna/phonenumber, and that's quite a good idea. The URIs should be treated as opaque by clients: not infer from the URI that it represents Madonna's phone number, and that Madonna is a customer of some sort. That knowledge can only be obtained by looking inside the URI itself, or perhaps by remembering where the URI was discovered.
Edit:
A consequence of this is that navigation should happen by links, not by deconstructing the URI. So if you see /resouces/customer/Madonna/phonenumber (and it actually represents Customer Madonna's phone number) you should have links in that resource to point to the Madonna resource: e.g.
{
"phone_number" : "01-234-56",
"customer_URI": "/resources/customer/Madonna"
}
That's the only way to navigate from a phone number resource to a customer resource. An important aspect is that the server implementation might or might not have domain specific information in the URI, The Madonna record might just as well live somewhere else: /resources/customers/byid/81496237. This is why clients should treat URIs as opaque.
Edit 2:
Another question you have (in the comments) is then how a client, with the required no knowledge of the server's URIs is supposed to be able to find anything. Clients have the following possibilities to find resources:
Provide a search interface. This could be done by providing an OpenSearch description document, which tells clients how to search for items. An OpenSearch template can include several variables, and several endpoints, depending on what you're looking for. So if you have a "customer ID" that's unique, you could have the following template: /customers/byid/{proprietary:customerid}", the customerid element needs to be documented somewhere, inside the proprietary namespace. A client can then know how to use such a template.
Provide a custom form. This implies making a custom media type in which you explicitly define how (based on an instance of the document) a URI to a customer can be forged. <customers template="/customers/byid/{id}"/>. The documentation (for the media type) would have to state that the template attribute must be interpreted as a relative URI after the string substitution "{id}" to an actual customer ID.
Provide links to all resources. Some resources aren't innumerable, so you can simply make a link to each and every one of them, optionally including identifying information along with the links. This could also be done in a custom media type: <customer id="12345" href="/customer/byid/12345"/>.
It should be noted that #1 and #2 are two ways of saying the same thing: Clients are allowed to create URIs if they
haven't got the URI structure a priori
a media type exists for which the documentation states that URIs should be created
This is much the same way as a web browser has no idea of any URI structure on the web, except for the rules laid out in the definition of HTML forms, to add a ? and then all the query parameters separated by &.
In theory, if you have a customer with id 12345, then you could actually dispense with the href, since you could plug the customer id 12345 into #1 or #2. It's more common to actually provide real links between resources, rather than always relying on lookup or search techniques.
I haven't really used web RPC systems (WSDL/Soap), but i think the 'interface document' is there mostly to allow client libraries to create the service API, right? if so, REST shouldn't need it, because the verbs are already defined and don't really need to be documented again.
AFAIUI, the REST way is to document the structure of each resource (usually encoded in XML or JSON). In that document, you'll also have to document the relationship between those resources. In my case, a resource is often a container of other resources (sometimes more than one type), therefore the structure doc specifies what field holds a list of URLs pointing to the contained resources. Ideally, only one unique resource will need a single, fixed (documented) URL. everithing else follows from there.
The URL 'style' is meaningless to the client, since it shouldn't 'construct' an URL. Every URL it needs should be already constructed on a resource field. That let's you change the URL structure without changing the client (that has saved tons of time to me). Your URLs can be as opaque or as descriptive as you like. (personally, i don't like text keys or slugs; my keys are all BIGINTs or UUIDs)
I am currently building a REST "agent" that addresses the first part of your question. The agent offers a temporary bookmarking service. The client code that is interacting with the agent can request that an URL be bookmarked using some identifier. If the client code needs to retrieve that representation again, it simply asks the agent for the url that corresponds to the saved bookmark and then navigates to that bookmark. Currently those bookmarks are not persisted so they only last for the lifetime of the client application, but I have found it a useful mechanism for accessing commonly used resources. E.g. The root representation provides a login link. I bookmark that link and if the client ever receives a 401 then I can redirect to the "login" bookmark.
To address an issue you mentioned in a comment, the agent also has the ability to store retrieved representations in a dictionary. If it becomes necessary to aggregate and manipulate multiple representations at the same time then I can simply request that the agent store the current representation in a dictionary associated to a key and then continue navigating to the next resource. Once the client has accumulated all the necessary representation it can do what it needs to do.
This is one of those little detail (and possibly religious) questions. Let's assume we're constructing a REST architecture, and for definiteness lets assume the service needs three parameters, x, y, and z. Reading the various works about REST, it would seem that this should be expressed as a URI like
http://myservice.example.com/service/ x / y / z
Having written a lot of CGIs in the past, it seems about as natural to express this
http://myservice.example.com/service?x=val,y=val,z=val
Is there any particular reason to prefer the all-slashes form?
The reason is small but here it is.
Cool URI's Don't Change.
The http://myservice.example.com/resource/x/y/z/ form makes a claim in front of God and everybody that this is the path to a specific resource.
Note that I changed the name. There may be a service involved, but the REST principle is that you're describing a specific web resource, named /x/y/z/.
The http://myservice.example.com/service?x=val,y=val,z=val form doesn't make as strong a claim. It says there's a piece of code named service that will try to do some sort of query. No guarantees.
Query parameters are rarely "cool". Take a look at the Google Chart API. Should that use a /full/path/notation for all of the fields? Would each URL be cool if it did?
Query parameters are useful. Optional fields can be omitted. New keys can be added to support new functionality. Over time, old fields can be deprecated and removed. Doing this is clumsier with a /path/notation .
Quoting from http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/08/11/rest.html
URI Opacity [BP]
The creator of a URI decides the encoding
of the URI, and users should not derive
metadata from the URI itself. URI opacity
only applies to the path of a URI. The
query string and fragment have special
meaning that can be understood by users.
There must be a shared vocabulary between
a service and its consumers.
This sounds like query strings are what you want.
One downside to query strings is that the are unordered. The GET ending with "?x=1&y=2" is different than that ending with "?y=2&x=1". This means the browser and any other intermediate systems won't be able to cache it, because caching is done based on the full URL. If this is a concern, then generate the query string in a well-defined order.
While constructing URIs this is the priniciple I follow. I don't know whether it is perfectly acceptable in all cases
Say for instance, that I have to get the details of an employee, then the URI will be of the form:
GET /employees/1/ and not GET /employees?id=1 since I treat every employee as a resource and the whole URI "employees/{id}" is used in identification of the resource.
On the other hand, if I have algorithmic operations that do not identify a specific resource as such,but merely require inputs to the algorithm which in turn identify the resource, then I use query strings.
For instance GET /employees?empname='%Bob%'&maxResults=100 might give me all employees whose names have the word Bob in them, with the maximum results returned by the query limited to 100.
Hope this answers your question
URIs are strictly split into a hierarchical part (the path) and a non-hierarchical path (the query), and both serve to identify the resource
Tthe URI spec itself (RFC 3986) clearly sets the path and the query portion of a URI as equal.
Section 3.3:
The path component contains data [...] that along with [the] query component
serves to identify a resource.
Section 3.4:
The query component contains [...] data that, along with
[...] the path component serves to identify a resource
So your choice in using x/y/z versus x=val&y=val&z=val has mainly to do if x, y or z are hierarchical in nature or if they're non-hierarchical, and if you can perceive them as always being hierarchical or non-hierarchical for the foreseeable future, along with any technical limitations you might be having on selecting one over the other.
But to answer your question, as others have noted: Neither is more RESTful than the other, since they both end up identifying a resource.
If the resource is the service, independent of parameters, it should be
http://myservice.example.com/service?x=val&y=val&z=val
This is a GET query. One of the principles behind REST is that you GET to read (but not modify!) the resource; you can POST to modify a resource & get a response; you can PUT to write to a resource; and you can DELETE to remove a resource.
If the resource specific with those parameters is a persistent resource, it needs a name. You could (if you organized your webservice this way) POST to http://myservice.example.com/service?x=val&y=val&z=val to create a particular instance of the service and have it return an ID to name this instance, e.g.
http://myservice.example.com/service/12312549
then use GET/POST/PUT/DELETE to interact with that instance.
First of all, defining URIs as part of your API violates a constraint of the REST architecture. You cannot do that and call your API RESTful.
Secondly, the reason query parameters are bad for non-query resource access is that they are generally not cached. It is also a violation of HTTP standards.
A URL with slashes like /x/y/z/ would impose a hierarchy and is not suited for the exact case of just passing three parameters.
If, like you said, x y z are indeed just parameters and the order is not important, it would be more RESTful to use semicolons:
http://myservice.example.com/service/x;y;z/
If your "service" however is just an algorithm that works the same with different parameters, there would also be nothing unRESTful with using ?x=val format.