Versions Compared

Old Version 4

changes.mady.by.user Ann Su

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Mustafa Yilmaz

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Agenda

  • Housekeeping

    • Summit reminder

    • Community groups

    • Ed-Fi Tracker

  • Identification Code Lookup

  • Lineage

Materials

View file
nameTAG August 2024.pdf

Participants

Expand

First Name

Last Name

Organization

David

Clements

Ed-Fi Alliance

Dirk

Bradley

Kalamazoo RESA/Michigan Data Hub

Don

Dailey

Keen Logic

Eric

Jansson

Ed-Fi Alliance

Jason

Hoekstra

Ed-Fi Alliance

Jay

Lindler

South Carolina District Data Governance

Jean-Francois

Guertin

EdWire

Josh

Bergman

Skyward

Jushua

Impson

Resultant

Katie

Favara

Texas Region 4

Matt

Hoffman

Aeries Software

Maureen

Wentworth

Ed-Fi Alliance

Robert

Nield

Unicon

Rosh

Dhanawade

Education Analytics

Sayee

Srinivasan

Ed-Fi Alliance

Stephen

Fuqua

Ed-Fi Alliance

Vinaya

Mayya

Ed-Fi Alliance

Wyatt

Cothran

South Carolina Department of Education

Brian

Bell

MSDF

Support: Ann Su

Notes

These notes complement the slide deck above and make the most sense when read along with the deck.

Housekeeping

Community Groups

  • Every member of the TAG should now have access to the TAG group

  • Visit https://community.ed-fi.org and sign-in with your community account.

  • Going forward, we will post new minutes and other TAG announcements here.

Identification Code Lookup

  • Situation:

    • A student can be identified by one of several different codes.

    • Submission of Ed-Fi data requires knowing the StudentUniqueId as stored for the given Ed-Fi API

      • A local installation might be using a different StudentUniqueId than their own state’s instance of the Ed-Fi API.

    • Currently, source systems must store a mapping of identification code(s) to the correct StudentUniqueId for a given contest.

      • Apparently, Texas has standardized on using the state ID

      • And in California they always use the local ID

      • Course ID might also be a problem in Texas

  • Can we get more information about who is having a problem with this?

    • EDITORIAL NOTE: after the meeting, we noticed that our two assessment provider TAG members were absent from the meeting. -SF

    • Michigan with NWEA

    • Some states do not have a unique ID for staff

    • In general, assessment rostering is difficult

  • Two approaches were presented for helping the client applications deal with this:

    • Add ability to query Student, Staff, Contact, and EducationOrganization by identification code.

    • Cache mappings on the API side and automatically translate.

      • Like ODS/API version 2

  • Option 2 is attractive to most… however, what about uniqueness?

    • Two different source systems can, today, insert the same identification code for a student.

    • This leads to possible cross-contamination of student data.

  • May need to make a breaking change to the Data Standard in the future to better support the multiplicity of student identifications with strong referential integrity and uniqueness. See DATASTD-1913.

  • Tentative conclusion:

    • There is a real preference for option 2, but the (a) enforces greater complexity in the Data Standard and the API application and (b) poses high risk in terms of data governance. Therefore, option 1 would be better at this time.

Lineage

  • We were unable to cover this topic; it will be postponed to the next meeting.

Next Meeting

  •  2:00 - 3:15 pm CDT

Table of Contents

Table of Contents