[Rets-dev] More about schema overrides

[Paul Stusiak]

Nice one. Always go for the ad hominem attack when available. As an 
argument style is is very useful. It distracts from a weak argument.

Oddly enough, I have been involved in building several of the largest 
systems that serve MLS, both RETS enabled and pre-RETS, so I like to 
think that I have more than a passing knowledge of how these things go 
together. I am not so full of myself to suppose that I can't learn and 
gain further insight through the contributions of others.

I've been doing this for thirteen years, working on production real 
estate systems. Before that I have another eighteen years of software 
development. The last twenty years have been as my own company. You 
should check your facts before making such comments. As a matter of 
experience, I feel compelled to share that even in those cases where you 
find that you are correct, it is almost always a mistake to make those 
comments.

Should I be calling into question your credentials? Since this is an 
open forum I am not.

I would further point out that there are precisely two people dissenting 
at this point, while the majority are correctly pointing out that we 
need to try to ensure inclusion.

Finally, I would point out that you are completely ignoring the voices 
that were heard from the MLS attendees themselves. There were sixteen 
different MLS in attendance at the last meeting.

Stick to presentation of facts or asking questions.

Paul

Matt Lavallee wrote:
> True enough, Steve.  And, while the dissension has come from members who
> actually have to implement the standard, it occurs to me that the only defenders
> thusfar have been consultants.
>
> -Matt
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rets-dev-bounces at rets.org [mailto:rets-dev-bounces at rets.org] On Behalf
>> Of Steve Clarke
>> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:54 PM
>> To: Jeff Brush; Rets-dev at rets.org
>> Subject: RE: [Rets-dev] More about schema overrides
>>
>> I think we need to do better than to agree to disagree.  This is a
>> fundamental direction of the RETS standards initiative and we need to
>> somehow get this decided.  Maybe we need to get the governance group to
>> show us how to resolve such disagreements.  From my standpoint, there
>> have been some serious issues raised with the notion of strict data
>> validation being tightly coupled with the schema standardization effort.
>> The dissention is coming from a pretty diverse group of people, and the
>> concerns are very similar.  I would not be satisfied if we all agree to
>> disagree and then the standard continues down this path with no
>> resolution for the issues.  I believe there were some reasonable
>> suggestions, not just disagreement.
>>
>> smc
>>     
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rets-dev mailing list
> Rets-dev at rets.org
> http://lists.rets.org/mailman/listinfo/rets-dev
>
>
>   

-- 
Paul Stusiak
Falcon Technologies Corp.