You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As an aggregator we are transitioning several hundred data sources to RESO and all of them have different local fields, without knowing the DD extremely well we can't tell what is a local field and what is a RESO standard field during mapping, mapping updates, looking through the data, etc.. Additionally publishing this data is difficult because we can't expect stakeholders to know which fields are RESO and can be relied upon and which are not so we can't really include the data at all even though it might be useful.
Could the local fields be moved into a LocalFields object within whatever resource they are associated with?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
I'd love for local fields to move a bit.
As an aggregator we are transitioning several hundred data sources to RESO and all of them have different local fields, without knowing the DD extremely well we can't tell what is a local field and what is a RESO standard field during mapping, mapping updates, looking through the data, etc.. Additionally publishing this data is difficult because we can't expect stakeholders to know which fields are RESO and can be relied upon and which are not so we can't really include the data at all even though it might be useful.
Could the local fields be moved into a LocalFields object within whatever resource they are associated with?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions