Metadata Change Proposal for Update

[dharris@fmls.com]

Sergio has done a great job of making progress on this change proposal each week. I have attached the working document as of today so that anyone not on the working group calls can see what we are doing.

[dharris@fmls.com]

Sorry, didn't realize that there was a 19k limit on the file size. here is the bare minimum.

[sschuessler]

It took me awhile to find it but here it is. This is the original proposal that was voted down by the RETS group. It is virtually identical to the current proposal.

These disappeared from the RETS.ORG site – at least I could not find them there.

http://www.realtor.org/retsorg.nsf/rcp059.pdf Localization

http://www.realtor.org/retsorg.nsf/rcp060.pdf Update transaction modification


There was a strong concern 3 years ago that placing presentation metadata into RETS beyond simple grouping would open up all sorts of problems.

Example: What device is it being presented on?

Also there was a concern about the number of new metadata object added to the system. If a system would like to have this metadata then there is nothing saying that it cannot, but forcing it into the specification creates contract issues. Let’s say a company is contracted to do a complete RETS server. Once all of this presentation metadata is in there then they are on the hook for it.

Steve – Never say never.

There are currently 18 metadata objects in the RETS Standard. If there is functionality needed like grouping then add a GroupName to Update Type and a GroupName to the Table Metadata. You do not need 5 new metadata objects to support field grouping. I have written an Update client before. I would have like to have simple grouping to page my screens, but that was all that was needed.

Why does the document still have the localization stuff in it?

Why is the sort stuff still there?

If the update group would like to add such a large number of metadata objects then consideration should be made for the rest of the standard and not just Update. Maybe there needs to be a Metadata workgroup and let Update focus on Update.

Stuart