The emerging problem is that there are many ways to talk about the same
curricular standard. So there exists for common core a canonical
English-language (non-machine readable) standard defined by the CCSS
consortia. Say this one for ELA:
ASN has the same standard here:
http://asn.jesandco.org/resources/S2364828
Academic Benchmarks has a GUID to describe this same standard, and
Massachusetts has created some internal GUIDs as well. There are
probably others! And there are valid business models and reasons why not
everyone is going to a universal single standard URL, at least not right
away (just recoding the database might be a pain). Of course we all want
them to link to the same resources, but right now it's not even very
easy to figure out which standard is the same as another standard..
Given that in LR it's pretty easy to say stuff like:
This thing is the "verb" of that thing.
Which in this case would be:
This "ASN common core ELA standard URL for rf.2.3" is the "same as"
"CCSS common core ELA standard URL rf.2.3"
With data services it's possible to ask questions of things like:
"Show me all standard URLs that are the same as
http://asn.jesandco.org/resources/S2364828"
And get back MA's GUIDs, AB's GUIDs, CCSS's URLs, etc. Seems like a
useful feature to get working in LR? It's relatively easy to implement I
think.. It seems very, very similar to our standards alignment data
service that connects standards to resources using alignment verbs
("aligned," "teaches," "assesses" etc)?
I wonder if this standard-standard data service should be the second
demo for data services or if ratings data are more useful? Creating a
place where anyone can register a correlation between on standard and
another standard seems very helpful for everyone in figuring stuff out?
All input welcome,
Steve
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
I'm suggesting that we could define "match" to require that you walk the entire graph.
Doing the walk/reification seems like a useful capability to have somewhere, otherwise someone will have to layer it on top of obtain or DS. Repeated calls to get single items and external walking of the graph won't be efficient.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jim Klo <jim...@sri.com> wrote:
I'm not sure "obtain" would do that... since it works by resource_locator or by doc_id, all 6 docs would have to have MA GUID as the resource_locator.
<Untitled.png>
Dear Learning Registry folks,
I am cross posting this to the LRMI working group and public group. This relates directly to the issue in LRMI of identify equivalent “Competency Alignments” to multiple “Promulgators” of the same standard. What is described below is rather a mess IMHO. What is needed is a consistent (alpha numerical) identifier for each statement from the publisher of the standard, and agreement amongst all promulgators to include that as a unique linking key. This however, I fear, requires agreement on the part of both the publishers of competency frameworks (standards) and those who provide reference data services (Promulgators).
Attempting to reverse engineer the relationships is not a sustainable solution and will fail at some point. Probably sooner than later.
Joshua Marks
CTO
Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community
I welcome you to become a member of the Curriki community, to follow us on Twitter and to say hello on our blog, Facebook and LinkedIn communities.
Hi Pat,
I'm not sure what you mean by topology -- do you mean like network graphs? (I know how to string those words together and pretend that there is math(s) underneath that I understand)./group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
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?
Steve
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.
- Dan
On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 02:32:02 UTC, Steve Midgley wrote:Hi Pat,
I'm not sure what you mean by topology -- do you mean like network graphs? (I know how to string those words together and pretend that there is math(s) underneath that I understand)./group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
Say New York and New Jersey's standards are the same - well their LR nodes talk to each other happily (no issues in sharing)
Say New York and Maryland have the same for English but not science - so they share English materials but not science.
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 the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
Daniel R. Rehak, Ph.D.
Learning Registry Technical Architect
ADL Technical Advisor
Skype: drrehak
Email: daniel.rehak@learningregistry.org
daniel.r...@adlnet.gov
Twitter: @danielrehak
Web: learningregistry.org
Google Voice: +1 412 301 3040
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
Stuart,
I greatly appreciate bringing more clarity to these terms. I was trying to stay with the conventions you originally suggested, which I interpreted as the “Publishers” produce a standard document, and “Promulgators” convert that to a data representation and distribute that. Perhaps we can be even more exposit and say that a “Producer” creates a standard, a “Publisher” creates a data representation (And there may be multiple publishers for the same standard), and a “Distributor” makes that data available to a “Consumer” (And again there may be multiple distributors for the same standard, and one distributor may have multiple published versions of the same standard).
This one-to-many-to-many structure represents the real world today. Take the case of Curriki where we have the ability to align to most state standards and the common core. In our case, a state or the NGA center Produces the standard document, and AB Publishes it and distributes it to us, and we in turn distribute it to our end users within the Curriki application, so do others.
Now the issue of having a Globally Unique Identifier for each statement in the standard itself does not seem feasible. Only a publisher can insure uniqueness between all statements in all the documents it publishes. But I believe locally unique IDs in the standard is really all that is needed for the matching problem. As long as you know the document (standard) in question, then the locally unique ID is sufficient to identify equivalent statements across multiple publishers or distributors. The Publisher is still responsible for creating a Publisher GUID, and the combination of a publisher unique ID (such as their name or domain) and their statement GUID makes a truly global GUID for any statement in any published version of any standard document. At the same time, two different GUIDs from two different publishers can be matched as representing the same statement in the same document on the basis of the locally unique statement id from the producer of the standard.
So we still need Producers to create locally unique IDs for each statement and Publishers to provide Publisher Unique IDs and maintain the Producer’s local ID and document name in their published data representations. This seems to me to be the most reasonable way to address the issues of matching equivalents statements from multiple sources.
Joshua Marks
CTO
Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community
US 831-685-3511
I welcome you to become a member of the Curriki community, to follow us on Twitter and to say hello on our blog, Facebook and LinkedIn communities.
From: lrmi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lrmi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stuart Sutton
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 10:14 AM
To: lrmi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com; LRMI
Subject: Re: [Learning Registry: Collaborate] Re: Standards alignment to standards alignment in LR via data services
Joshua, I'd like to shift the definition you've given to "promulgator" to a slightly more conventional one. There is only _one_ promulgator of a competency and that's the entity that created it. The competencies so promulgated are usually in a narrative form suitable for the audience needing to deal with them in the classroom and elsewhere--not data people but educators and policy people etc.. Because there is a need for a representation of those competencies in a form that can be machine-processable (i.e., as data), "someone" has to do the analysis to represent the original narrative as data. Let's pick up on some advice from Alan Paull and call these folks "producers" (for lack of a better term). You mention a couple of producers--ASN and AB. Now the promulgator _could_ also play the role of producer of a data representation of their narrative. Historically, almost no promulgators have chosen to do so. Frequently, they simply do not see it as their job; and, in the olden days, many promulgators considered doing so antithetical to their goals--a downright violation of their original purpose and even others thought the process of creation and use of such data as now envisioned as degenerate.
You suggest that the mapping problem would be solved if the promulgators assigned a "consistent (alpha numerical) identifier [to] each statement." Perhaps, if such identifiers were _globally unique_ they'd be somewhat useful. In fact, many, many promulgators _do_ assign what they consider _unique identifiers_ to statements--i.e., identifiers that are unique in the domain of their narrative (the only one they care about). I'd note that competent producers of data representations actually _do_ include such promulgator-coined identifiers in their data representations. But, those identifiers are never globally unique and therefore cannot stand as reliable means for mapping in the wild.
Now, if promulgators were willing to do what they have never been willing to do before and produce globally unique identifiers for the semantic components of their competencies in a robust computing and network environment that's up to the task of machine dereferencing of potentially millions of on-the-fly requests, that would be absolutely great. At that point they would be both promulgator and producer of data representations in a context that is curated long term (very long term--we'll be mapping resources of some lasting utility to those data points). Personally, Joshua, I think you are asking a great deal of most promulgators.
Stuart
--
Stuart A. Sutton,
CEO and Managing Director, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
Associate Professor Emeritus, The Information School
University of Washington
The distinctions between the various "P" terms may become moot as the lines blur between which entity is playing which role. Honestly, so long as the data representations are accurate, granular enough for the purpose at hand, and interoperable, the standardization of what "just works" seems like it can follow market adoption vs. lead it.
--
Daniel R. Rehak, Ph.D.
Learning Registry Technical ArchitectADL Technical Advisor
Skype: drrehak
Email: daniel...@learningregistry.org
daniel.r...@adlnet.gov
Twitter: @danielrehak
Web: learningregistry.org
Google Voice: +1 412 301 3040
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
@Steve: I think the only addition you need to make to reconcile to Pat's email is to add one word to your response (in CAPS):
"If I have a thousand Khan academy videos (#1 to 1000) that I align to a single state standard STATEMENT called ABC�"
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.
� � - Dan
On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 02:32:02 UTC, Steve Midgley wrote:Hi Pat,
I'm not sure what you mean by topology -- do you mean like network graphs? (I know how to string those words together and pretend that there is math(s) underneath that I understand)./group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
Say New York and New Jersey's standards are the same - well their LR nodes talk to each other happily (no issues in sharing)
Say New York and Maryland have the same for English but not science �- so they share English materials but not science.
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 the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
�
�
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
Daniel R. Rehak, Ph.D.
Learning Registry Technical Architect
ADL Technical Advisor
Skype: drrehak
Email:� daniel...@learningregistry.org
� � � � � � daniel.r...@adlnet.gov
Twitter: @danielrehak
Web:�� learningregistry.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
�
�
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
�
To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com
�
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
�
�
To chime in on SPARQL, I set up some sample graphs in ASN’s Quad Store using Steve’s examples (I think I captured them correctly). Let me preface this post by saying that making “owl:sameAs” relationships casually is not to be taken lightly as things are seldom “the same”. Technically can it be done in SPARQL? I think so, but whether it_should_be_done, is another conversation.
So technically speaking:
Example #1:
If you stored various “sameAs” relationships like this:
ASN=>CCSS
MA=>CCSS
AB=>CCSS
as individual RDF statements in a graph, it may look like this (simplified):
and someone asks: "Show me ALL the known standards that are same as this GUID from MA?" in SPARQL, it could look like this:
SELECT ?matches
WHERE
{
<http://stateStandard.com/1234> owl:sameAs ?o.
OPTIONAL {?matches owl:sameAs ?o.}
FILTER (?matches != <http://stateStandard.com/1234>)
}
Where a user submits a known state identifier (<http://stateStandard.com/1234>) asking, “What is it same as?”, then passing that result back (so now, ?o == CCID) and continue looking for any other RDF subjects (variable - ?matches) that also declare to be sameAs the CCID (?matches == ASN and Corporate GUID).
The ASN SPARQL response in a HTML table:
Example #2:
If you stored various “sameAs” relationships like this:
ASN=>CCSS
MA=>ASN
AB=>CCSS
As individual RDF statements in its own separate graph, it may look like this (simplified):
And you wanted to get from a known state ID, which only expresses alignment to ASN, to any other corporate GUID by walking the graph, you could run SPARQL:
SELECT ?s1 where
{
<http://stateStandard.com/1234> owl:sameAs ?o1.
OPTIONAL {?o1 owl:sameAs ?o2}.
OPTIONAL {?s1 owl:sameAs ?o2}.
FILTER (?s1 != ?o1)
}
Where you search for anything declared as sameAs to the known state ID (<http://stateStandard.com/1234>) (so you’d get ?o1 == ASN) then pass that ASN RDF statement while looking for what it is sameAs (so, ?o2 == CCID) then you look for any unknowns (?s1) that have declared to be the sameAs the CCID stored in ?o2.
The ASN SPARQL response in a HTML table:
I am not a SPARQL connoisseur and this does not take into account any special ontological reasoning setup on the Quad store beforehand, or storing this RDF data more efficiently to simplify the above queries.
I hope this is somewhat helpful?
Joseph
Thanks Doug. I agree that movement to public, official and machine-readable standards from CCSS (endorsed by CCSSO and NGA) does make it hard for any other set of IDs to be considered as "canon" (good word!). I do hope this doesn't harm existing businesses - I think there are lots of areas to create value around common core standards.
I think we will all be coping with a multiplicity of standard IDs for a long time, even with CCSS official IDs.
I agree that including EdGate UUIDs is a really good point, if they are or become publicly visible (are they now?). I have no contact there. If you do, please email steve....@ed.gov with who I might talk with.
Could you elaborate on the risk factor you identified: "getting somehow out of phase during an update to statement language." I'm not sure I understand that.
On the plus side of all this, at least Learning Registry project isn't proposing to create a whole new set of standard ID's! :)
Steve
On 3/21/2012 1:02 AM, Doug Gastich wrote:
@Steve: I think the only addition you need to make to reconcile to Pat's email is to add one word to your response (in CAPS):
"If I have a thousand Khan academy videos (#1 to 1000) that I align to a single state standard STATEMENT called ABC…"
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.
- Dan
On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 02:32:02 UTC, Steve Midgley wrote:Hi Pat,
I'm not sure what you mean by topology -- do you mean like network graphs? (I know how to string those words together and pretend that there is math(s) underneath that I understand)./group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
Say New York and New Jersey's standards are the same - well their LR nodes talk to each other happily (no issues in sharing)
Say New York and Maryland have the same for English but not science - so they share English materials but not science.
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 the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
Daniel R. Rehak, Ph.D.
Learning Registry Technical Architect
ADL Technical Advisor
Skype: drrehak
Web: learningregistry.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
I find this thread interesting on a number of fronts.� Please excuse any etiquette violations I might be making in my post.
@Steve.� Regarding your opening example with the Common Core Canonical and ASN URLs, the equivalent AB URL is:
http://www.academicbenchmarks.org/search/?guid=7E402F7C-7440-11DF-93FA-01FD9CFF4B22
And, yes these are public documents in our collection.� 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 here:
http://academicbenchmarks.com/standards-translator
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 standards.
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.� A very prescient point.
@Joshua, Jim. Regarding canonical references and getting promulgators (i.e. SEAs, LEAs, etc) to play nicely according to the rules.� I agree it could happen, and generally has not occurred.� To that end, Academic Benchmarks is promoting a technically-sound solution directly to SEAs:
http://academicbenchmarks.com/ab-common-core
I completely agree that the separation of the GUID from the URI makes a more flexible model.� 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.� It certainly is a valid format, among many, for representing standards in markup language.
Kelly Peet
Founder/CTO
Academic Benchmarks
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Jim G <james.dona...@gmail.com> wrote:
[shortened version of my post on LRMI to this discussion]
The matching service is valuable, but it is also reasonable to expect
that the resources that LRMI calls promulgators have the publisher/
producer's canonical reference code and GUID in their database /
online reference.
In CEDS terms these identifiers are:
Learning Standard Item Code -- �A code designated by the publisher to
identify the statement, e.g. "M.1.N.3", usually not globally unique
and usually has embedded meaning such as a number that represents a
grade/level and letters that represent content strands.
and
Learning Standard Item Identifier -- An unambiguous globally unique
identifier.
(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, 1:02�am, Doug Gastich <dgast...@learning.com> wrote:
> @Steve: I think the only addition you need to make to reconcile to Pat's email is to add one word to your response (in CAPS):
>
> "If I have a thousand Khan academy videos (#1 to 1000) that I align to a single state standard STATEMENT called ABC�"
>
> 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 language).
>
> -Doug
>
> Douglas Gastich
>
> Director of Content and Partner Development
> Learning.com
>
> 503-517-4463begin_of_the_skype_highlighting������������503-517-4463
> � � - Dan
>
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Patrick.Lock...@googlemail.com<mailto:Patrick.Lock...@googlemail.com> <patrick.lock...@googlemail.com<mailto:patrick.lock...@googlemail.com>> wrote:> I'm not sure what you mean by topology -- do you mean like network graphs? (I know how to string those words together and pretend that there is math(s) underneath that I understand)./group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en>
>
> On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 02:32:02 UTC, Steve Midgley wrote:
>
> Hi Pat,
>
>
> Say New York and New Jersey's standards are the same - well their LR nodes talk to each other happily (no issues in sharing)
>
> Say New York and Maryland have the same for English but not science �- so they share English materials but not science.
>
> 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 the Google
> Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
>
> To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com<mailto:learning-registry-col labo...@googlegroups.com>
> To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com<mail to:unsubscribe%3Alearning-registry-collaborate%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.c om>
>
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
>
> --
> Daniel R. Rehak, Ph.D.
>
> Learning Registry Technical Architect
> ADL Technical Advisor
>
> Skype: drrehak
> Email: �daniel.re...@learningregistry.org<mailto:daniel.re...@learningregistry.org>
> � � � � � � daniel.rehak....@adlnet.gov<mailto:daniel.rehak....@adlnet.gov>
> Google Voice:+1 412 301 3040begin_of_the_skype_highlighting������������+1 412 301 3040
>> To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com<mailto:learning-registry-col labo...@googlegroups.com>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
>
> To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com<mail to:unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com>
>
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
>> To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com<mailto:learning-registry-col labo...@googlegroups.com>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
>
> To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com<mail to:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com>
>
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=enI'l be
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
�
�
To chime in on SPARQL, I set up some sample graphs in ASN�s Quad Store using Steve�s examples (I think I captured them correctly).� Let me preface this post by saying that making �owl:sameAs� relationships casually is not to be taken lightly as things are seldom �the same�.� Technically can it be done in SPARQL? I think so, but whether it_should_be_done, is another conversation.
So technically speaking:
Example #1:
If you stored various �sameAs� relationships like this:
ASN=>CCSS
MA=>CCSS
AB=>CCSS
as individual RDF statements in a graph, it may look like this (simplified):
and someone asks:� "Show me ALL the known standards that are same as this GUID from MA?" in SPARQL, it could look like this:
SELECT ?matches
WHERE
�{
� <http://stateStandard.com/1234> owl:sameAs ?o.
� OPTIONAL {?matches owl:sameAs ?o.}
� FILTER (?matches != <http://stateStandard.com/1234>)
�}
Where a user submits a known state identifier (<http://stateStandard.com/1234>) asking, �What is it same as?�, then passing that result back (so now, ?o == CCID) and continue looking for any other RDF subjects (variable - ?matches) that also declare to be sameAs the CCID��(?matches == ASN and Corporate GUID).
The ASN SPARQL response in a HTML table:
Example #2:
If you stored various �sameAs� relationships like this:
ASN=>CCSS
MA=>ASN
AB=>CCSS
As individual RDF statements in its own separate graph, it may look like this (simplified):
And you wanted to get from a known state ID, which only expresses alignment to ASN, to any other corporate GUID by walking the graph, you could run SPARQL:
SELECT ?s1 where
{
<http://stateStandard.com/1234> owl:sameAs ?o1.
OPTIONAL {?o1 owl:sameAs ?o2}.
OPTIONAL {?s1 owl:sameAs ?o2}.
FILTER (?s1 != ?o1)
}
Where you search for anything declared as sameAs to the known state ID (<http://stateStandard.com/1234>) (so you�d get ?o1 == ASN) then pass that ASN RDF statement while looking for what it is sameAs (so, ?o2 == CCID) then you look for any unknowns (?s1) that have declared to be the sameAs the CCID stored in ?o2.
The ASN SPARQL response in a HTML table:
I am not a SPARQL connoisseur and this does not take into account any special ontological reasoning setup on the Quad store beforehand, or storing this RDF data more efficiently to simplify the above queries.
I hope this is somewhat helpful?
Joseph
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Steve Midgley <steve....@ed.gov> wrote:
Thanks Doug. I agree that movement to public, official and machine-readable standards from CCSS (endorsed by CCSSO and NGA) does make it hard for any other set of IDs to be considered as "canon" (good word!). I do hope this doesn't harm existing businesses - I think there are lots of areas to create value around common core standards.
I think we will all be coping with a multiplicity of standard IDs for a long time, even with CCSS official IDs.
I agree that including EdGate UUIDs is a really good point, if they are or become publicly visible (are they now?). I have no contact there. If you do, please email steve....@ed.gov with who I might talk with.
Could you elaborate on the risk factor you identified: "getting somehow out of phase during an update to statement language." I'm not sure I understand that.
On the plus side of all this, at least Learning Registry project isn't proposing to create a whole new set of standard ID's! :)
Steve
On 3/21/2012 1:02 AM, Doug Gastich wrote:
@Steve: I think the only addition you need to make to reconcile to Pat's email is to add one word to your response (in CAPS):
"If I have a thousand Khan academy videos (#1 to 1000) that I align to a single state standard STATEMENT called ABC�"
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.
� � - Dan
On Tuesday, 20 March 2012 02:32:02 UTC, Steve Midgley wrote:Hi Pat,
I'm not sure what you mean by topology -- do you mean like network graphs? (I know how to string those words together and pretend that there is math(s) underneath that I understand)./group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
Say New York and New Jersey's standards are the same - well their LR nodes talk to each other happily (no issues in sharing)
Say New York and Maryland have the same for English but not science �- so they share English materials but not science.
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 the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
�
�
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
Daniel R. Rehak, Ph.D.
Learning Registry Technical Architect
ADL Technical Advisor
Skype: drrehak
Email:� daniel...@learningregistry.org
� � � � � � daniel.r...@adlnet.gov
Twitter: @danielrehak
Web:�� learningregistry.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
�
�
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
�
To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com
�
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
�
�
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
�
�
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
--
Joseph Chapman
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
�
�