Scott's Plan

Co-Chair Yates' proposed plan is now available in StratML Part 1, 
Strategic Plan, format at https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#SYP4CWCG

With reference to Goal 1: Survey 
<https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/SYP4CWCGwStyle.xml#_644db230-1b44-11ec-bb91-7e711a83ea00> 
- Identify existing initiatives, it would be good if those initiatives 
were documented in an open, standard, machine-readable format like StratML.

Regarding Goal 2: Evaluation 
<https://stratml.us/carmel/iso/SYP4CWCGwStyle.xml#_644db3b6-1b44-11ec-bb91-7e711a83ea00> 
- Evaluate current initiatives, a "framework" that could be used is 
StratML Part 2, Performance Plans & Reports.

To the degree, the sponsors may have already specified the performance 
indicators for their initiatives, all that would be required is to 
render them in StratML format.  However, if they have not, specifying 
such indicators is a potential value-add by this group.

Another potential value add would be to use the stratml:Relationship 
<https://stratml.us/references/oxygen/PerformancePlanOrReport20160216_xsd.htm#Relationship> 
elements to document and link relationships among those initiatives.

BTW, Data Standard United may publish a directory of standards related 
to education.  Brandt Redd's matrix of those standards is available in 
StratML format at https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#DLS

Wouldn't it be nice if standards were documented in an open, standard, 
machine-readable format?  Might doing so be a quick win for this group?

Just some wild and crazy thoughts ... for whatever they may be worth.

Owen
https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenambur/