SIS SIG - Meeting 9 - 2024.08.05

Participants

Agenda

1. Continued from July meeting

Materials

See materials from July 22

Notes

• More detailed availability statements

  • Concern raised that some SIS vendors don't have current customers going to the latest version and/or they don't have visibility into the local level of usage to be able to provide that registry info. 

  • SIS vendors want to be able to say they are certified to support the most recent DS version, but agency customers are slow to make the upgrade/change. 

  • They wish there was a way for them to be certified on a most recent DS version without an agency, or to be able to reflect that in the registry. 

  • One SIS expressed need to be able to provide context when listing #2 "supports all data elements required under certification". Some states do not collect certain elements, but they could be made available or are available with some variation. 

  • Recommendation from the group: the Ed-Fi Alliance needs to give guidance to states that the bar for certification is high and it will have an impact on smaller/state-specific SIS vendors who will need to develop functionality that they may not need to use for that state. 

  • Next step: draft an example for their feedback, work with Josh, Matt, Jen to refine. 

•  API Integration

  • Question raised about a minimum requirement for multiple API connections, or if multiple APIs are required for same-year connections or past-year connections. 

  • Suggested that we define as needing 1 state and 1 core connection to start

  • Next step: clarify the minimum required number and type of API connections for certification

• Performance / Optimization

  • Clarified that the goal is to demonstrate vendors ability to send more narrow amounts of data for error resolution and performance. 

  • Consensus that recommendations 1 "Resync only the failed records" and "Resync by single API resource (e.g., all sections, all staff)

  • Next steps: Recommendation 3 needs to be made more general and should be specific about strategies. We want to see that they offer some way of filtering the data on a granular level and avoiding excessive load due to resyncing. 

• Error Handling

  • General consensus that this is ok without any changes or clarifications

• API Consumers

  • No commentary from the group, recommendations make sense

• UI/UX Best Practices

  • Next steps: Clarify that the error dictionary is just an example, that we want to see their strategy for error resolution. In other words, highlight "other similar resource

• Next steps

  • Ed-Fi team to make the discussed updates/changes to the proposal and share with the group.

  • Proposed changes will be posted on Tech Docs in August for public feedback during September and October. 

  • Changes will be in effect starting in November.