Participants
| Expand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Support: Ann Su, Ed-Fi Alliance |
Agenda
Improving alignment of SEA data specifications to Ed-Fi core data model
Awareness of Summit presentation - see page here with link to deckhttps://events.bizzabo.com/summit2024/agenda/session/1388702
Any feedback from SIS providers?
Ed-Fi next steps: business logic analysis focused on attendance domain
Proposed additions to SEAs guidance https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zv8PDqJLV7oRdcGQG3kBBacdXn_2GiDhzDqPRqcqa6w/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.hhevn0icya3z
Would appreciate review by SIG members by end of Dec 6
...
Notes
Improving Alignment of SEA data specifications to Ed-Fi Core Data Model. Review of Summit “State of the State Reporting” Presentation.
Positive reception to analysis and findings of the report. Aligns to what is seen in the field.
This was an eye-opener for a couple states and they expressed desire to bring their bubbles down to the core line.
It will be more effective if we can coordinate with SIS vendors and the SEA on what to do to reduce the bubble
General agreement and request to get early participation with the state to do this work.
Based on this analysis, what do we think can be absorbed into the core model? A: use cases the Alliance has absorbed in the last two years include
Student program evaluation
Transportation
Assessment registration
Alliance asked: what is your interaction with states like to apply the business logic and rules to validate?
It is generally a struggle, there are a lot of business rules to validate, extensions created without full understanding of the data model. We need states to help make corrections and that takes a lot of work
Sometimes it is better to create an extension rather than implement more business rules.
E.g. Texas and self-paced students needing different start date. This is especially true for key fields.
Response from Alliance: our goal is to minimize unnecessary extensions but in some cases it is recommended to have extensions. Which is why we want to see analysis done at the data element and entity level.
Next steps: Business logic analysis will continue focused on attendance domain, led by Maria.
Could an output of this work be guidance/recommendation for a standard way for a state to write their business rules, that is machine and human readable? Well formatted business rules, validation rules will help a great deal.
Review and feedback to SEA Resources for Vendors
Feedback appreciated by December 6th
State validation and promotion rules: if they were structured in a standard format it would be much easier for a SIS to evaluate and see where are any gaps.
Others agreed with this point as something that would be nice to have, but were not optimistic about it being possible. It would be beneficial to standardize, but it really depends on the state.
Validation API was raised as a potential standardized solution for this but it is not widely adopted.
Actions
SIS team members to provide feedback on SEA Resources for Vendor guidance by December 6th.