Versions Compared
Key
- This line was added.
- This line was removed.
- Formatting was changed.
Agenda
Housekeeping
Welcome
Tech Congress Priorities
Technical working groups
Ed-Fi API Design Guidelines
Materials
|
Participants
Expand | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Support: Ann Su |
Notes
These note complement the slide deck above and make the most sense when read along with the deck.
Housekeeping
Tech Congress Priorities
Lineage can probably provide the "source system of record".
Essential to track for analytics use cases. For example, if assessment data comes in through a SIS, there might be a different level of trust than if the data came in directly from the assessment provider.
The data may be at the column level - for example, an SIS might provide values for some columns, and an HR system might provide values for other columns on the same record. Especially with staff.
Technical Working Groups
Data Standard: Is this also a place to discuss new domains that are not already on the radar?
Yes
Look to see if there is already an Ed-Fi Tracker ticket. If not, please create a support case describing the domain of interest.
What happened to the LMS domain work? Did not receive much community support or interest, so the work was halted. However, it could easily be revived. (Tip: there are no active Data Standard tickets for the LMS work; please create a support case if interested).
What is the difference between TAG and a work group?
Work group is deeper into the technical details.
Work group could have other attendees.
Work group should report out to the TAG after every meeting, including a short executive summary.
Ed-Fi API Design Guidelines
Documents:
Summary of the changes: SUMMARY-GUIDELINES-4.0.md (github.com)
The entire document: v4.0/README.md (github.com)
Alternately, see exactly what changed compared to v3.1: Pull Request for comparison to prior version (github.com)
Poll - deciding on how to decide: 75% responded - give us two weeks to review and then vote.
Are minor updates possible after approval by vote?
Editorial updates might be made, but not updates of substance.
Use of GitHub means there will be robust version tracking and visibility.
Comments directly on GitHub pull requests are warmly welcomed.
Deprecation of link
Maybe not used because of a lack of awareness?
Alternatives would also work. Preference voiced for option 2.
Would we be able to perform a GET ALL request? Yes, we can add that.
Applies to all abstract entities? Yes, at least to the two defined in the Ed-Fi Data Standard. Might not apply for abstract entities used by extensions (strongly recommend against creating any new abstract entities).
Is identification code lookup covered in these guidelines?
No, as it is a specific API specification rather that complements the Ed-Fi Resources API.
Was never migrated from ODS/API Platform suite 2, but could be if there is community interest.
ODS-2827 - epic for ODS/API 2.x covering Identification Code Translation
ODS-3083 - epic for this work in suite 3 - contains many open tickets.
Can vote for or comment on this ticket to show interest in the work.
Also see Student ID to Identification Code Translation (Ed-Fi ODS / API)
Can add it back to the TAG backlog.
ODS-5665 may be related, though it is not explicitly about the Identification API.
Might be useful to create a support case so that there will be a new ticket tracking this request.
Lineage
Perhaps "modifications" should be the top-level entity; each entry would have its own source system / created / modified information.
Next Meeting:
Table of Contents
Table of Contents |
---|