[Rets-dev] RETS 2 Service Document posted to www.ftc2.com

[Sergio Del Rio]

So, can we get rid of R0043 and put this back to the way it should be?

Regards,
Sergio Del Rio
Templates 4 Business Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Clarke [mailto:Steve.clarke at firstamericanmls.com] 
Sent: May 18, 2006 6:28 AM
To: Sergio Del Rio; Paul Stusiak; rets-dev at rets.org
Subject: RE: [Rets-dev] RETS 2 Service Document posted to www.ftc2.com

Yea.  I thought we called that a "vocabulary" too.  But in the current
draft spec, that meaning (of vocabulary) has been twisted by R0043 which
now attaches an inherent functional limitation (must be searchable) on
the vocabulary fields.  That change now implies that we are
substantially missing something from the metadata and it also creates a
redundancy with the IsSearchable attribute in the dictionary.  In my
mind, the fact that we even have an IsSearchable attribute in the
dictionary validates the original intent of a vocabulary to be exactly
what you are asking about.  Certainly that's what I thought too.  But
R0043 kinda defeats the original purpose.

Smc

-----Original Message-----
From: rets-dev-bounces at rets.org [mailto:rets-dev-bounces at rets.org] On
Behalf Of Sergio Del Rio
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 11:31 PM
To: 'Paul Stusiak'; rets-dev at rets.org
Subject: RE: [Rets-dev] RETS 2 Service Document posted to www.ftc2.com

OK, I must be tired.  I thought it was there at some point, but now I
can't
see it.  What happened to the metadata tag concept that was going to
reduce
the amount of different metadata that we were going to have.  Did we
replace
this simply with different Vocabulary or Data Dictionary versions?

Regards,
Sergio Del Rio
Templates 4 Business Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: rets-dev-bounces at rets.org [mailto:rets-dev-bounces at rets.org] On
Behalf
Of Paul Stusiak
Sent: May 16, 2006 3:02 PM
To: rets-dev at rets.org
Subject: [Rets-dev] RETS 2 Service Document posted to www.ftc2.com

Changes for FC5

1. Remove section 2.4

2. Add requirement 

R0148	A Provider SHOULD return a fault when an invalid Field Name is
used
in a
Query by the Requestor.

and modify the text preceeding to clarify the behavior of Vocabulary
under
security and system reductions.

3. Correct select statement for the Delimted ObjectType to use either
the
WellKnown Vocabulary field names or the DataDictionary field names.

4. Update R0138 from presented to present

5. Update R0139, adding the preamble "If DisplayGroups are present in
the
Vocabulary document," to the beginning of the document.

6. Added a reference section pointing to the RQL Query Language
documents.
They
are currently only available on the mirror site and not on rets.org.

The document will be bookmarked and an index added after the final vote.

It is now posted to www.ftc2.com
-----------
Paul Stusiak,
President,
Falcon Technologies Corp.
_______________________________________________
Rets-dev mailing list
Rets-dev at rets.org
http://lists.rets.org/mailman/listinfo/rets-dev



_______________________________________________
Rets-dev mailing list
Rets-dev at rets.org
http://lists.rets.org/mailman/listinfo/rets-dev