Yay! This is great and means we don't have to do it. Far from an
etiquette violation, you've just solved a big problem for a bunch of
Thanks for the clarification and it's great to have AB providing
these services. Ultimately for any of this to be sustainable, we
need business models underneath, so I'm happy to see your company
taking this on.
And the value AB and others have created by tying disparate state
and other curricular standards together is complex and not something
a community project like LR could take on for sure. I'm personally
glad if we don't have to take on even just this simple conversion
between existing standards for CCSS. Providing an XML or JSON
version (machine readable) as a format would be great when you can
get to it (it's clear you're heading there with your greyed out
pull-down entries). Please email this list (and LRMI) at least, when
Also, I really like that you're including API docs right in the HTML
results set to make it obvious how to use it and how to get
alternative formatted results in the future..
And, yes these are public documents in our collection.ï¿½ Per a side
discussion with Joe Hobson, who helpfully expressed that we need
to make our data easier to discover, we have exposed a standards
translation service much like the variety discussed in this thread
(e.g. given an ASN ID, what is the AB GUID), which is running
Regardless of where folks prefer a service like this to reside or
which protocol is used to access it, there is a critical (and not
very sexy) first step of creating the equations between so many
fractured organizations attempting to articulate digital copies of
Also, as noted, the tougher problem is finding relevant
connections when the relationship between two sets of standards is
not an "equals" sign, deemed out of scope for LR at this time.ï¿½ A
very prescient point.
@Joshua, Jim. Regarding canonical references and getting
promulgators (i.e. SEAs, LEAs, etc) to play nicely according to
the rules.ï¿½ I agree it could happen, and generally has not
occurred.ï¿½ To that end, Academic Benchmarks is promoting a
technically-sound solution directly to SEAs:
I completely agree that the separation of the GUID from the URI
makes a more flexible model.ï¿½ The Learning Standard Item to which
you refer, sounds like the SIF XML (LearningStandardDocument and
LearningStandardItem), which many of our clients prefer to receive
standards from our collection.ï¿½ It certainly is a valid format,
among many, for representing standards in markup language.
version of my post on LRMI to this discussion]
The matching service is valuable, but it is also reasonable to
that the resources that LRMI calls promulgators have the
producer's canonical reference code and GUID in their database
In CEDS terms these identifiers are:
Learning Standard Item Code -- ï¿½A code designated by the
identify the statement, e.g. "M.1.N.3", usually not globally
and usually has embedded meaning such as a number that
grade/level and letters that represent content strands.
Learning Standard Item Identifier -- An unambiguous globally
(Note: CEDS v2 has URI as URL+GUID, candidate for CEDS v3
change is to
separate out GUID from URI, i.e. Learning Standard Item URL --
reference to the statement using a network-resolvable URI)
- Jim Goodell
On Mar 21, 1:02ï¿½am, Doug Gastich <dgast...@learning.com>
> @Steve: I think the only addition you need to make to
reconcile to Pat's email is to add one word to your response
> "If I have a thousand Khan academy videos (#1 to 1000)
that I align to a single state standard STATEMENT called
> Also, consider adding 'EdGate UUID' to your growing
list of ID providers for standards statements.
> @ Joshua: I think you are correct to fear that
agreement is required. Organizations like AB and EdGate (and
to some extent, ASN) are in competition to be the de-facto
canon. A huge portion of their services value goes out the
window the moment an actual official standard is endorsed.
It seems to me that Steve's approach here is to find a way
to accept this as a condition of the system and work with
it. But I agree, it creates a potential for failure at
multiple points (the first one that comes to mind is getting
somehow out of phase during an update to statement
> Douglas Gastich
> Director of Content and Partner Development
> Subject: Re: [Learning Registry:
Collaborate] Re: Standards alignment to standards alignment
in LR via data services
> I'm not sure I agree with this assertion, or maybe I
don't understand it.. :)
> If I have a thousand Khan academy videos (#1 to 1000)
that I align to a single state standard called ABC (let's
make this an easy example), then I would have a bunch of
alignment statements in LR like
> #1 "is aligned to" ABC
> #2 "is aligned to" ABC
> ...#1000 "is aligned to "ABC"
> Then if someone else figures out that XYZ standard is
"same as" ABC, they would put
> XYZ "same as" ABC in the system
> So if someone comes to the system looking for XYZ
resources, at minimum, we could ask them to do this:
> Data service #2: "What standards are [same as] XYZ?"
> Answer: "ABC"
> Data service #1: "Show me all resources aligned to
XYZ"; "Show me all resources aligned to ABC"
> Answer: #1..1000
> You'd only have 1 "same as" statement to relate XYZ to
ABC? And then 1000 alignment statements?
> How do I have this messed up?
> On 3/20/2012 3:39 PM, Daniel Rehak wrote:
> Hi Pat
> Good point.
> We've been talking about aligning individual standard's
statements, the most primitive.
> So if the standard was described in 1000 statements,
then we would need 1000 "same as" alignment statements, one
for each part to align it with another standard.
> I think you want to align entire aggregates at a time.
> Not sure we even have a good model of the aggregates.
> ï¿½ ï¿½ - Dan
> Say New York and New Jersey's standards are the same -
well their LR nodes talk to each other happily (no issues in
> Say New York and Maryland have the same for English but
not science ï¿½- so they share English materials but not
> So you do the standards via a node venn diagram?
> I may have missed the point entirely.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to
> Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.