Recommendation to rescind the "RETS 2.0 Web Service" specification

[Kristen carr]

I believe that decision would not be made by the board, something like that would follow the same voting process as any other spec change.

We've been having this discussion at meetings for several years now. We don't ever move forward in any direction but spend a good deal of time in circular conversations. While I am not part of the Transport workgroup or the Standards Committee, I strongly support this discussion occurring online and preferably publicly before we spend another 2 hours arguing about it in December. I believe December would be the time to vote but let's please attempt to move the discussions along before then.

Thanks

[MattL]

Kristen --

I agree completely about having the conversation online; this is why I did not make the argument at our last meeting, even though it had occurred to me then: I don't want to waste our in-person time on charged debate when there are factors to consider.

However, and again I'm deferring to the model that this body has approved, Workgroups discuss and propose, the Committees decide whether to pass up workgroup product, and the Board ultimately approves or denies any changes.

-Matt

[Steve Clarke]

We can certainly discuss this (briefly) in tomorrow's Transport WG. As chairperson, I highly recommend that we respect the magnitude of this conversation and that we elevate the discussion to the Standards Committee. We need to note that there are existing implementations and that those need to inventoried and be taken into consideration. Given that we do not have all of the information with regards to existing 2.0 implementaions, I do not feel it is appropriate for the Transport WG to make any recommendation other than to just make sure the discussion is open. Above all, I want whatever comes out of Transport to be constructive.

[rbonham]

Steve,

What time is the transport call today? It is not listed on the calendar of meetings.. http://rets.org/cms/committee

Thanks,

[Steve Clarke]

The call is at 1 PM eastern time, today, Wednesday. Conference Call: Bridge (800) 727-7709 - PassCode: 8359369

I sent an Outlook meeting reminder yesterday to the members of the Transport WG. If you would like to join the transport WG to help us with constructive work in the area of enabling the RESO schema in RETS 1.8, then please call in. If this is related to the call to rescind the RETS 2.0 specification, I can assure everyone that there will be no circus performance during my call today. We will promote this to the Standards Committee, with the recommendation of a wider discussion and consideration for existing implementations.

[Chip McAvoy]

Folks, RETS 2 is being used in the market. People are coding to the protocal approved. Conceptually RETS 2 is really two things, a new protocal/messaging structure and schemas that expand payloads beyond MLS systems. There is a need for it, now more then ever.

To answer the RETS 2 question we really ahve to ask the question about what is the scope of RETS/RESO. Is it going to be a pseudo-proprietary standard for MLS systems or will it become a more general purpuse standard playing a much broader role in the real estate industry. If RETS/RESO doesn't pick this up then someone else will.

As other stated, this isn't really a question for the Transport WG, but probably one that the Business/Technical Committees need to sort out.

[MattL]

Originally Posted by Chip McAvoy

Folks, RETS 2 is being used in the market. People are coding to the protocal approved.

Chip, while I realize that you have an implementation based on portions of the RETS2 service document, the standard itself was never completed. RQL, as documented, has already been deemed incapable of querying payloads, and at least the "RETS2 Security Document" was never written.

Originally Posted by Chip McAvoy

Conceptually RETS 2 is really two things, a new protocal/messaging structure and schemas that expand payloads beyond MLS systems. There is a need for it, now more then ever.

Although there seems to be mixed recognition of the fact, I'm fairly certain that as of the December 2007 Meeting in Miami, the RETS Schema were "officially" recognized as the RESO Schema. I don't think anyone, including myself, has questioned the value of the RESO Schema in the marketplace. If I'm not mistaken, that's also the primary reason this workgroup was formed.

Originally Posted by Chip McAvoy

To answer the RETS 2 question we really ahve to ask the question about what is the scope of RETS/RESO. Is it going to be a pseudo-proprietary standard for MLS systems or will it become a more general purpuse standard playing a much broader role in the real estate industry. If RETS/RESO doesn't pick this up then someone else will.

How does the "mission" of RETS/RESO relate to using SOAP as a messaging protocol? If we look to the technological trends in interoperability, it's quite clear that REST is making significant headway to surpass SOAP as "the standard". In fact, given the resource-based model of RETS 1.x, REST is actually a more appropriate interface. In 14 years, RETS still hasn't accomplished its goal of being the omnibus Real Estate standard, and I don't think SOAP is going to clinch it. If someone else is working on "the answer" and has found a better way to solve all of our problems, we should invite them to RESO instead of throwing up the walls and stirring up the masses.

Originally Posted by Chip McAvoy

As other stated, this isn't really a question for the Transport WG, but probably one that the Business/Technical Committees need to sort out.

Regardless of how many times people state this opinion, I'm adhering to the Governance model as it is written. The Committees are not the elite voting body that "knows better". The Committees review proposals from the Workgroups and determine whether they need to be voted upon by the general assembly. It is the stated responsibility of the relevant Workgroup Chair to call for a majority vote on any proposal put forth. Should a dispute involving the actions of the Standards Committee arise, the issue can be put forth to the Board of Directors, which may approve or decline the issue. Even then, the vote by the Board of Directors may be overturned by a 2/3rds vote of the general assembly.

See pages 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Governance Document for Responsibilities of the respective groups and Chairs.

I understand that few want to be accountable for this one, but I'm following due process.

-Matt

[clarke]

Originally Posted by MattL

In recognition that:

1. The 29 Payloads defined by this Specification are no longer considered valid or complete
2. The 200 Requirements defined by this Specification are no longer considered valid or complete
3. The RQL language defined by this Specification is no longer considered complete
4. Numerous documents referenced by this Specification were never written
5. The industry, following several rigorous internal and external reviews, has determined that further development of the RETS 1.x Specifications is best for the marketplace

I recommend that the Transport workgroup summarily propose that the "RETS2 Web Service" as finalized on August 6, 2006, be rescinded as a Standard recommendation and all of its features and definitions be considered deprecated in favor of the continued 1.x Standards.

As has always been the case, conveying that 2.x is a progressive advancement versus 1.x sends an inconsistent message to the marketplace. And, with the renewed development of the 1.x Standard line, such confusion would only further harm the effort to improve RETS as it is actually implemented.

-Matt

Hi Friend's ,
I agree with Matt L as well, especially when it comes to compliance and certification. Whatever the service document is today, it isn't widely deployed and should play no role in certification or scorecards or anything of the sort.



_________________________
Indianapolis limo service

[Clyde]

That's a bit off topic for this thread. You should probably post something to the general development forum.


coupons

[Clyde]

I'm adhering to the Governance model as it is written. The Committees are not the elite voting body that "knows better". The Committees review proposals from the Workgroups and determine whether they need to be voted upon by the general assembly.


coupons