SearchUser loginPopular contentAll time:
Valuation Firm GuideClient Guide
|
Valuation Firm Guidetest.valex.com.au updatedWe've updated our test site to the next version of ValEx code. Please let us know if you encounter any issues. By doconnor at 2010-01-25 14:45 | API | Client Guide | Valuation Firm Guide | login to post comments
Funder Specific InformationIn an upcoming release around February 2010, we will be sending Funder Specific Information in our LIXI packets under More valuation firm workflow: Attempting Contact, Appointment CancelledValEx supports a number of WorkFlow events, but doesn't have a way to map "Attempting Contact" and "Appointment Cancelled". We're looking for input on the best way to implement such functionality between us and our valuation firms. Our suggestions are:
Compliance comments, LendersCaution and LendersCautionCommentA lot of our lixi valuation firm partners in regional areas often come across the situation where they have to use out of date sales evidence to support their report. This means the report is likely to need review by out compliance department. Previously, we've automatically generated the compliance note from the valuer in these cases. Going forward, we'll be looking at At this time, we will not be rendering this to our LIXI clients and lenders. ValEx will support this some time around Large attachments implementationWe've deployed the Large File Attachment implementation to our test and production servers. Discussions on the lixi mailing lists about this has brought us:
We'll be both parsing and rendering attachments in this way, on an opt-in basis. If you would be interesting in trialling this, please contact us. By doconnor at 2009-11-05 20:16 | API | Client Guide | Valuation Firm Guide | login to post comments
update() Web ServiceWe have implemented an update() Web Service. The update() Web Service is roughly equivalent to the functionality available via the Job Edit tab. LIXI parties (Clients and Valuation Firms) will be able to amend details such as:
Retrospective Valuations, MIP and Forced Sale ValuesWe'll be introducing a new variant of a ShortForm report, a Retrospective valuation. These valuations are done as a comparison to an original report, and use sales evidence from the period of original valuation. For MIP (Mortgagee In Possession reports), we'll sometimes require a Forced Sale Value - what the subject property would fetch. Of course, then there's the combination of a MIP Retrospective valuation - we aren't currently explictly modelling this, however may do so in the future. Retrospective valuation requires a valuation date which is the date of original inspection and will be the 'valuation assessment' basis. Check out the service type mappings. Service type: XPathsWe'll parse and render a both of: //FullRegistered[@ValSubType=ShortForm] //FullRegistered/SubTypeNote/text() == "Retrospective Short Form" To indicate we are ordering a Retrospective Short Form. We'll parse and render both of: //FullRegistered[@ValSubType=Standard] //FullRegistered/SubTypeNote/text() == "Retrospective Long Form" To indicate we are ordering a Retrospective Long Form. Forced Sale Value: XPathsValEx will look for a Forced Sale Value in both of: //ValueComponent[@OtherValue] //ValueComponent[@OtherValueDescription="Forced Sale Value Range"] Formatted as a xsd:decimal. Valuation Date: XPathsValEx will model valuation date as an inspection appointment. //FullRegistered/InspectionAppointment[0] # Normal inspection information //FullRegistered/InspectionAppointment[1] # Retrospective valuation date Job State DiagramWe have roughly documented our job state transitions as a UML State Diagram. Disclaimer: It may not be accurate to the finest detail but it should suffice. Feedback is welcome. Please find the PDF attached. By dbezborodov at 2009-09-08 15:16 | Client Guide | Valuation Firm Guide | login to post comments | 1 attachment
Attachments and Large Packets - a better solution?One common implementation problem we're running into is inline attachments for lixi packets. The schema defines an element to base64 encode binary files. Typically, this runs from 1-6mb in packet size for a completed valuation report (PDFs, titles, invoices, etc). <xs:element name="InlineAttachment" type="xs:base64Binary"> What tends to happen is someone deploys a system, and a few days later, packets are being rejected as they are beyond the capabilities of the server's default configuration. We'd like to get opinions on how others have solved this, and also propose an idea or two. The suggestion: Common tools for linux environments include things like 'wget' and there are an abundance of simple HTTP client libraries in a variety of languages. HTTP also provides a mechanism to do authentication (HTTP Basic Authentication), as well as compression ("Accept-Encoding"). I'd like to suggest: <xs:element name="Attachment"> <xs:complextype> <xs:sequence> <xs:element minoccurs="1" ref="Identifier"> <xs:element minoccurs="1" ref="RelatedEntityRef"> <xs:element minoccurs="1" ref="InlineAttachment"> </xs:element> <xs:attribute name="SourceDomain" type="xs:string"> <xs:attribute name="Filename" type="xs:string"> </xs:attribute> </xs:attribute>
So: Post Valuation Queries and Amending ReportsOpening a QueryWe provide a requestValuationQuery() method for clients. Within ValEx only allow one open query at a time - subsequent queries are appended as notes. We would like to encourage our valuation firm users to implement a similar method in their soap services. This will allow valuation firms to accept valuation queries in a meaningful way. Resolving a QueryWe provide a We'd like all of our clients (to provide such a method in their soap service) and valuation firms (to send us responses) to consider implementing this. The current resolutions within ValEx are:
Amending a report with no Open QueryWe also allow valuation firms to send an amended report in some circumstances. This is documented here. By doconnor at 2009-07-16 14:11 | API | Client Guide | Valuation Firm Guide | 1 comment | 1 attachment
![]() |
Related LinksNavigation |
Recent comments
10 years 12 weeks ago
11 years 4 weeks ago
11 years 6 weeks ago
11 years 6 weeks ago
11 years 11 weeks ago
11 years 35 weeks ago
11 years 40 weeks ago
11 years 45 weeks ago
11 years 45 weeks ago
11 years 45 weeks ago