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

[Matt Lavallee]

On Friday, July 27, 2007 at 1:58 PM, Paul wrote:

> I think we are having semantic rather than substance differences here.
> 
> I don't think that we determined that it was insufficient, only that it
> would force implementations to limit the response depth and that
> responses would generally be excessively large - a bad thing. More
> semantic than substance - a way to control the response documents is a
> very good thing and that is what we are discussing.

I think Sergio actually raised the point at Rockville, and something in my brain
suggests that it was with respect to Phone Numbers, but it could have been
something else...  The generalized problem was that RQL afforded no way to
correlate payloads at points where no Key structure existed, particularly in
doing "upstream" queries (what Member has xyz element value when that element is
defined in a payload/schema inherited by Member).

> In Minnetonka, Matt brought forward a very interesting suggestion and
> solution that has resulted in the need to revisit the query language
> which will be discussed in the Chicago meeting.

I, of course, think it is the most efficient (and simple!) approach. :)

> I don't believe that the Service Compliance document has been completed.
> It definitely has not been adopted.

Can we get a placeholder on the site?  I only ask because the Service Document
refers to it for some key information and I thought it was lost in the site
transition.

-Matt