[Rets-dev] More about schema overrides

[Matt Lavallee]

Paul --

While it wasn't meant to be personal, there are some conclusions to be drawn
from the fact that the five or six of us who are "pro-loose" are MLS vendors and
RETS consumers, while the vocally "pro-strict" have only been yourself and Jeff
(more about the MLSes in a moment).  Regardless of all else, *I* don't want a
standard that is going to be a pain for *my* MLS to implement -- pushing
adoption time to god-knows-when -- and even more of a pain for *me* to consume.
Undoubtedly the vendors have reached the same conclusion: trying to purify all
of their clients' data for the sake of RETS 2.0 will be an utter nightmare.

Surely, data standardization is a noble goal; but many of us feel that this is
not the appropriate forum for establishing such policy.  And while those
participating MLSes see some benefit, they most likely do not appreciate the
chasm we have to cross to make it a reality anytime soon.  I personally think
it's of dubious merit even then -- because, as an MLS, _they_ control the data
regardless.  If they want to change, they can do so without a
_transport_protocol_ defining the standard.

IMHO, there should be a Real Estate Data Standards (REDS) group working on this,
exclusive of RETS.  RETS-loose would work regardless of their decisions, and
we'd be done _long_ before such a standard could reach consensus (even among the
vocal few).

I absolutely do not question your credentials with respect to Real Estate
technology at all (quite the contrary, in fact).  What bothers me most is that
this standard has been in the oven for two years already, and data validation is
going to push general adoption out for a minimum of 2 years.  Should it really
take 5 years for a standard to be implemented?  In light of that, consider how
quickly we _could_ roll out structured/standard transport!  Within *months* of
having a final spec, even RETS 1.x could be adapted to speak RETS 2.0, let alone
the native possibilities from the vendors, which would be as easy to implement
as Frank's field-mapping tool.

My issue with consultants -- and, believe me, I understand because I was one --
is that scope-creep, while inevitable, benefits them personally, and the best
interests of the collective are not necessarily aligned with their own.  The
more difficult the specification is to deploy, the more money they will make.
Moreover, how many consultant members have to position their future gigs based
on work done here?  To me, that's a conflict of interest, because some
(potentially-paying) members of the group will likely be afforded more
consideration than the rest.

My credentials really shouldn't matter much; particularly since other, smarter
people with more significant credentials than mine seem to think I'm not the
crazy on the street corner.

-Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Stusiak [mailto:pstusiak at falcontechnologies.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 11:54 AM
> To: Matt Lavallee
> Cc: Rets-dev at rets.org
> Subject: Re: [Rets-dev] More about schema overrides
> 
> 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
> >