> A question is: where are mappings and such changes managed?
> To put all this in the metadata is asking for trouble and, as you imply,
> gives rise to massive legacy issues.

> Our experience is that you try to keep the metadata to a minimum (unique
> ids plus perhaps one preferred label) and deal with the mappings,
> translations, navigation structures and change control via a separate
> service.

> Cheers
> Mike 7:-D
> -----------
> Mike Collett, Schemeta
> +44 7798 728 747
> ------------
> www.schemeta.com
> email: m...@schemeta.com
> twitter: @schemeta
> skype: mikecollett

> people are the network

> On 14 Nov 2012, at 14:47, Kelly Peet <ke...@academicbenchmarks.com> wrote:

> A slight tangent to the point, more of a question to the original thinkers
> of LRMI's design, regarding Jim's point #2 as it relates to scalability:

> Presuming a piece of content being tagged is applicable to many
> authorities (for argument sake, let's stay with 50 states for now), it
> would seem necessary to cite 50 URIs to assert and meet the requirement of
> "all applicable learning standard items".  My mind runs in a variety of
> directions:

> - what about content that applies to more than one learning standard per
> authority (or to a portion of a learning standard)?

> - what is the ultimate size of the payload making such assertions?

> - did i read earlier that hidden-only markup may not be considered by
> search engines, so all these assertions must appear on the page?

> - i hear Common Core pointed as one possible antidote to 50 states, but
> wonder about subjects besides Math and Language Arts, as well as the
> numerous varieties of state-specific Common Core standards (possibly making
> the presumptive 50 more like 100).

> I completely understand if this line of questioning is quelled on this
> thread.  Just thinking one step down the road how to support LRMI while
> also being keenly attuned to the volume and scalability issues and how to
> address them.  We have a couple million content items tagged tightly to
> hundreds of authorities, more than 400M assertions across 10 subject
> areas.  Looking for pearls of wisdom.
> kelly

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Jim Goodell <
> james.donald.good...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Good mediation Joshua, and good points Stuart, Kelley, and Doug (glad to
>> have you join the discussion).  I'll concede that multiple options are best
>> for LRMI.

>>  ...maybe it is a matter of communications to inform publishers that
>> their resource will be more discoverable if they tag by enumerating each
>> applicable grade level rather than (or in addition to) the proxy for a
>> grade range such as "elementary", and even more discoverable if also tagged
>> with standards, and even more discoverable if aligned with more granular
>> micro standards.   ...or maybe simple/concrete messaging: for best
>> discoverability tag with both 1) the list of grade levels AND 2) alignment
>> to all applicable learning standard items.   Perhaps this messaging can be
>> part of whatever is published as the convention for grade level alignment.

>> -jim