[Rets-dev] I'm developing a RETS 2.0 server. Are there any RETS2.0clients to validate with?

[Paul Stusiak]

Just to be clear, what has been approved are the following:

RQL - using a modified DMQL like BNF for querying has been approved. 
Matt is bringing forward a suggestion to do something more sophisticated 
on the query/select side that we will hopefully be starting the 
discussion in Chicago on the Friday.

RETS2 Service Document - the point to point transport to Search and Update.

A RETS2 implementation is possible carrying a custom schema. That is 
what we have today.

The Schemas, standard vocabulary and security are still to be voted on.

Also, it is possible that we will have some suggestions on improving the 
metadata, based on real-world experience.

To be clear, there is Update in the existing, adopted RETS2 Service 
Specification Document. This update was informed by the proposals 
brought forward by Sergio Del Rio in New Orleans in 2005. While it may 
be desirable to increase this portion of the specification, it should be 
sufficient as is to do an Update transaction.

Matt Lavallee wrote:
> Hey, I made that point back in Austin.  That being said, I think there's a clear
> distinction between the "spec" being approved in its entirety and the payloads
> being approved.  Contriving the output schema is a fairly early step in the
> process, and I don't see any conceivable roadblocks to that end other than
> "that's a PITA on our implementation."
>
> The bigger functional areas -- query mechanism (revisited), output formatting
> options, "data dictionary" & "vocabulary", update, etc. -- are still solidly on
> the table for review and shouldn't be approved until they've been vetted by a
> couple of reference implementations.
>
> That's all my opinion, of course, and I'm sure someone will point out some way
> that I'm wrong.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Friday, July 27, 2007 at 11:43 AM, dbt wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 03:48:53PM -0500, Matt Lavallee wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi Cain,
>>>
>>> The RETS 2.0 spec is still in progress, and I don?t think there are any
>>> reference 2.0 clients yet (or even a current 2.0 server, for that matter).
>>> Short of having a WSDL framework, no payloads have yet been approved by the
>>> body, and the query language is currently up in the air.
>>>
>>> It would probably be a bit of a fool?s errand to start anything before NAR
>>> Annual (when most MLS payloads will have been approved).
>>>       
>> I'm sure I'm opening up a can of worms here, but really?  The specs
>> are being approved and there's no implementations?
>>
>> Back in my day, you'd have to bring two implementations, up hill,
>> in the snow, both ways....
>>
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rets-dev mailing list
> Rets-dev at rets.org
> http://lists.rets.org/mailman/listinfo/rets-dev
>
>
>   

-- 
Paul Stusiak
Falcon Technologies Corp.