Add Total Learning Architecture (TLA)

[Hello-GregKulp]

https://github.com/tla-ecosystem/awesome-tla#readme

Standards-based infrastructure for tracking learning activities, managing competencies, and maintaining learner records across defense, workforce development, and education systems.

PRs reviewed:

#3863
#3861
#3910
#3874

By submitting this pull request I confirm I've read and complied with the below requirements 🖖

Please read it multiple times. I spent a lot of time on these guidelines and most people miss a lot.

Requirements for your pull request

• [✓] Don't open a Draft / WIP pull request while you work on the guidelines. A pull request should be 100% ready and should adhere to all the guidelines when you open it. Instead use #2242 for incubation visibility.
• [✓] Don't waste my time. Do a good job, adhere to all the guidelines, and be responsive.
• [✓] You have to review at least 2 other open pull requests.
  Try to prioritize unreviewed PRs, but you can also add more comments to reviewed PRs. Go through the below list when reviewing. This requirement is meant to help make the Awesome project self-sustaining. Comment here which PRs you reviewed. You're expected to put a good effort into this and to be thorough. Look at previous PR reviews for inspiration. Just commenting “looks good” or simply marking the pull request as approved does not count! You have to actually point out mistakes or improvement suggestions. Comments pointing out lint violation are allowed, but does not count as a review.
• [✓] You have read and understood the instructions for creating a list.
• [✓] This pull request has a title in the format Add Name of List. It should not contain the word Awesome.
  • ✅ Add Swift
  • ✅ Add Software Architecture
  • ❌ Update readme.md
  • ❌ Add Awesome Swift
  • ❌ Add swift
  • ❌ add Swift
  • ❌ Adding Swift
  • ❌ Added Swift
• [✓] Your entry here should include a short description of the project/theme of the list. It should not describe the list itself. The first character should be uppercase and the description should end in a dot. It should be an objective description and not a tagline or marketing blurb. It should not contain the name of the list.
  • ✅ - [iOS](…) - Mobile operating system for Apple phones and tablets.
  • ✅ - [Framer](…) - Prototyping interactive UI designs.
  • ❌ - [iOS](…) - Resources and tools for iOS development.
  • ❌ - [Framer](…)
  • ❌ - [Framer](…) - prototyping interactive UI designs
• [✓] Your entry should be added at the bottom of the appropriate category.
• [✓] The title of your entry should be title-cased and the URL to your list should end in #readme.
  • Example: - [Software Architecture](https://github.com/simskij/awesome-software-architecture#readme) - The discipline of designing and building software.
• [✓] No blockchain-related lists.
• [✓] The suggested Awesome list complies with the below requirements.

Requirements for your Awesome list

• [✓] Has been around for at least 30 days.
  That means 30 days from either the first real commit or when it was open-sourced. Whatever is most recent.
• [✓] Run awesome-lint on your list and fix the reported issues. If there are false-positives or things that cannot/shouldn't be fixed, please report it.
• [✓] The default branch should be named main, not master.
• [✓] Includes a succinct description of the project/theme at the top of the readme. (Example)
  • ✅ Mobile operating system for Apple phones and tablets.
  • ✅ Prototyping interactive UI designs.
  • ❌ Resources and tools for iOS development.
  • ❌ Awesome Framer packages and tools.
• [✓] It's the result of hard work and the best I could possibly produce.
  If you have not put in considerable effort into your list, your pull request will be immediately closed.
• [✓] The repo name of your list should be in lowercase slug format: awesome-name-of-list.
  • ✅ awesome-swift
  • ✅ awesome-web-typography
  • ❌ awesome-Swift
  • ❌ AwesomeWebTypography
• [✓] The heading title of your list should be in title case format: # Awesome Name of List.
  • ✅ # Awesome Swift
  • ✅ # Awesome Web Typography
  • ❌ # awesome-swift
  • ❌ # AwesomeSwift
• [✓] Non-generated Markdown file in a GitHub repo.
• [✓] The repo should have awesome-list & awesome as GitHub topics. I encourage you to add more relevant topics.
• [✓] Not a duplicate. Please search for existing submissions.
• [✓] Only has awesome items. Awesome lists are curations of the best, not everything.
• [✓] Does not contain items that are unmaintained, has archived repo, deprecated, or missing docs. If you really need to include such items, they should be in a separate Markdown file.
• [✓] Includes a project logo/illustration whenever possible.
  • Either centered, fullwidth, or placed at the top-right of the readme. (Example)
  • The image should link to the project website or any relevant website.
  • The image should be high-DPI. Set it to a maximum of half the width of the original image.
  • Don't include both a title saying Awesome X and a logo with Awesome X. You can put the header image in a # (Markdown header) or <h1>.
• [✓] Entries have a description, unless the title is descriptive enough by itself. It rarely is though.
• [✓] Includes the Awesome badge.
  • Should be placed on the right side of the readme heading.
    • Can be placed centered if the list has a centered graphics header.
  • Should link back to this list.
• [✓] Has a Table of Contents section.
  • Should be named Contents, not Table of Contents.
  • Should be the first section in the list.
  • Should only have one level of nested lists, preferably none.
  • Must not feature Contributing or Footnotes sections.
• [✓] Has an appropriate license.
  • We strongly recommend the CC0 license, but any Creative Commons license will work.
    • Tip: You can quickly add it to your repo by going to this URL: https://github.com/<user>/<repo>/community/license/new?branch=main&template=cc0-1.0 (replace <user> and <repo> accordingly).
  • A code license like MIT, BSD, Apache, GPL, etc, is not acceptable. Neither are WTFPL and Unlicense.
  • Place a file named license or LICENSE in the repo root with the license text.
  • Do not add the license name, text, or a Licence section to the readme. GitHub already shows the license name and link to the full text at the top of the repo.
  • To verify that you've read all the guidelines, please comment on your pull request with just the word unicorn.
• [✓] Has contribution guidelines.
  • The file should be named contributing.md. The casing is up to you.
  • It can optionally be linked from the readme in a dedicated section titled Contributing, positioned at the top or bottom of the main content.
  • The section should not appear in the Table of Contents.
• [✓] All non-important but necessary content (like extra copyright notices, hyperlinks to sources, pointers to expansive content, etc) should be grouped in a Footnotes section at the bottom of the readme. The section should not be present in the Table of Contents.
• [✓] Has consistent formatting and proper spelling/grammar.
  • The link and description are separated by a dash.
    Example: - [AVA](…) - JavaScript test runner.
  • The description starts with an uppercase character and ends with a period.
  • Consistent and correct naming. For example, Node.js, not NodeJS or node.js.
• [✓] Does not use hard-wrapping.
• [✓] Does not include a CI (e.g. GitHub Actions) badge.
  You can still use a CI for linting, but the badge has no value in the readme.
• [✓] Does not include an Inspired by awesome-foo or Inspired by the Awesome project kinda link at the top of the readme. The Awesome badge is enough.

Go to the top and read it again.

[Hello-GregKulp]

unicorn

[Vvkmnn]

Cool list. I'm actually working on some learning projects so I found it pretty useful to see these standards; especially the ones with xAPI.

Regarding the list, found some things worth fixing:

• Hard wrapping: Multiple entries span across lines (e.g., IEEE standards entries wrap mid-sentence). Guidelines suggest that we do not use hard-wrapping, so each entry should be on a single line.
• Missing description: At least one entry ([IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC)](https://sagroups.ieee.org/ltsc/)) has no description.
• 30-day rule: Repo's gotta be around for at least 30 days; not quite there yet.

[Hello-GregKulp]

@Vvkmnn

Cool list. I'm actually working on some learning projects so I found it pretty useful to see these standards; especially the ones with xAPI.

Regarding the list, found some things worth fixing:

• Hard wrapping: Multiple entries span across lines (e.g., IEEE standards entries wrap mid-sentence). Guidelines suggest that we do not use hard-wrapping, so each entry should be on a single line.
• Missing description: At least one entry ([IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC)](https://sagroups.ieee.org/ltsc/)) has no description.
• 30-day rule: Repo's gotta be around for at least 30 days; not quite there yet.

hey thank you for the feedback - hard wrapping is optional from what I see. Would love to hear what you're working on and will get to that description thank you for call out!

the awesome repo we're submitting for has been open since Jan 1

[Hello-GregKulp]

for hard wrap saying looks optional form what I'm seeing from other lists in primary repo btw ~ hard to not hard wrap when the terminology is... well wrapable because of length of standard ontology lol @Vvkmnn any suggestions? 😭

[Vvkmnn]

Hmm, I'm not quite sure tbh. It does seem like yours is a special case.

I'll have to defer to one of the proper
maintainers here, would hate to make any assumptions about the guidelines. I'm rather new to them too.

[Jogai]

The google group mentioned says "content unavailable". Besides, I browsed around, but I'm still unsure what it actually is, or how it could benefit me...

[Hello-GregKulp]

@Jogai I'll check Google group - thanks for calling out - it had been used a bit back .
If you're in learning technology and sciences it compiles resources on TLA and xAPI. If you're in EdTech and or data governance in learning, this is likely something you'd want to reference to be interoperable. If this is your field is there anything you'd want to see?

[Jogai]

No, I'm not active in that field, maybe that's why it doesn't say anything to me. I expected something to standardize your own approach to studying.

[Hello-GregKulp]

@Jogai I should go back and create more clarity in there, thank you for the feedback!!

[gabrielgames5998-max]

Manda no meu WhatsApp

[sindresorhus]

Insufficient qualifying reviews

You listed 4 reviews, but only 1-2 qualify:

PR	What you did	Counts?
#3863	"looks good...visually meets guidelines! Also like this repo"	No -- "looks good" is explicitly called out as not counting
#3861	"Checklist not completed in review - follow guidelines"	Borderline -- identifies an issue but no specifics
#3910	Title includes "awesome", missing comment, template altered	Yes -- multiple specific issues
#3874	"Great list! Will be using myself...congrats!"	No -- pure praise

The template says: "Just commenting 'looks good' or simply marking the pull request as approved does not count!"

Hard-wrapping throughout the README

The guidelines say "Does not use hard-wrapping." Multiple entries and the top description have line breaks mid-sentence:

Standards-based infrastructure for tracking learning activities, managing 
competencies, and maintaining learner records across defense, workforce 
development, and education systems.

- [IEEE 9274.1.1-2023](...) - xAPI (Experience API) using
JSON and RESTful data transport.

Remove all hard line breaks within paragraphs and entry descriptions.

---

Linked list issues

Multiple typos

• "Exle" instead of "Example" (appears twice: "Exle of xAPI Video Profile", "It is an exle of how to send")
• "Learnign Record provider" instead of "Learning Record provider"
• "Assignabel unit" instead of "Assignable unit"

Entries without links

Six items under "Working Group Standards (In Development)" have no URLs:

• P9274.3.1
• P9274.4.2
• P2247.2
• P2247.4
• P2834
• P2997

Awesome list entries require - [Name](url) - Description. format. Items without URLs should be removed or linked to their working group pages.

Missing entry description

[IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC)](https://sagroups.ieee.org/ltsc/) under Related Standards Bodies has no description.

Broken link

The Google Group link (groups.google.com/g/xapi-spec) shows "content unavailable."

Contributing section includes inline instructions

The Contributing section has numbered steps. It should just link to CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Minor issues

• Entry description in the diff is good and well-placed (bottom of Learn section). No issues with the entry itself.
• Logo exists and is referenced. ✓
• "ADL LRS Conformance test Suite" has inconsistent capitalization ("test" lowercase).