Skip to Content
Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 20:35
From version 1.1
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 12:02
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 6.3
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 12:36
Change comment: Renamed back-links.

Summary

Details

Page properties
Parent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -FactHarbor.Specification.Data Model.WebHome
1 +FactHarbor.Playground.WebHome
Content
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
1 +(((
2 +
3 +)))
4 +
1 1  = 5. Data Model =
2 2  
3 3  The FactHarbor data model centers on four fully versioned, immutable entities:
... ... @@ -41,10 +41,10 @@
41 41   (scenarios live at the *claim* level, not per individual phrasing).
42 42  * Verdicts and Scenario–Evidence links are always attached to **versions**:
43 43  * {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} +
44 - {{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}} →
45 - {{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION{{/code}}
48 +{{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}} →
49 +{{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION{{/code}}
46 46  * {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} →
47 - {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}}
51 +{{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}}
48 48  
49 49  This ensures that when a Scenario or Evidence changes, old verdicts and links
50 50  remain intact as historical records and can be revisited.
... ... @@ -57,128 +57,111 @@
57 57  The convention is that fields ending in {{code}}Id{{/code}} are primary keys,
58 58  and fields with {{code}}...IdFk{{/code}} are foreign keys.
59 59  
64 +{{comment}} Core Data Model ERD (Mermaid, from /Specification/Diagrams/Data Model) {{/comment}}
65 +{{include document="FactHarbor.Playground.Core Data Model ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome" reference="FactHarbor.Playground.data.Core Data Model ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome"/}}
66 +
67 += Core Data Model ERD (Versioned) =
68 +
69 +This diagram shows the full core data model with all versioned entities.
70 +
60 60  {{mermaid}}
61 61  erDiagram
62 -
63 63   CLAIM_CLUSTER {
64 - string claimClusterId
65 - string theme
66 - string embeddingVectorRef
67 - string language
68 - datetime createdAt
74 + string ClusterID PK
75 + string EmbeddingVectorRef
76 + string Theme
69 69   }
70 70  
71 71   CLAIM {
72 - string claimId
73 - string claimClusterIdFk
74 - string status
75 - datetime createdAt
80 + string ClaimID PK
81 + string ClusterID FK
82 + string Status
83 + datetime CreatedAt
76 76   }
77 77  
78 78   CLAIM_VERSION {
79 - string claimVersionId
80 - string claimIdFk
81 - string text
82 - string language
83 - string claimType
84 - string domain
85 - string authorType
86 - datetime createdAt
87 + string ClaimVersionID PK
88 + string ClaimID FK
89 + string Text
90 + string ClaimType
91 + string Domain
92 + datetime CreatedAt
87 87   }
88 88  
89 89   SCENARIO {
90 - string scenarioId
91 - string claimIdFk
92 - string key
93 - string title
94 - boolean isDeprecated
96 + string ScenarioID PK
97 + string ClaimID FK
98 + string Name
99 + datetime CreatedAt
95 95   }
96 96  
97 97   SCENARIO_VERSION {
98 - string scenarioVersionId
99 - string scenarioIdFk
100 - string versionTag
101 - string definitionsJson
102 - string assumptionsJson
103 - string boundariesJson
104 - string notes
105 - datetime createdAt
103 + string ScenarioVersionID PK
104 + string ScenarioID FK
105 + string Definitions
106 + string Assumptions
107 + string Boundaries
108 + datetime CreatedAt
106 106   }
107 107  
108 108   EVIDENCE {
109 - string evidenceId
110 - string canonicalSourceId
111 - string mainUrl
112 - string evidenceType
113 - string language
112 + string EvidenceID PK
113 + string SourceType
114 + string URL
115 + float ReliabilityScore
114 114   }
115 115  
116 116   EVIDENCE_VERSION {
117 - string evidenceVersionId
118 - string evidenceIdFk
119 - string snapshotLocation
120 - string extractionSummary
121 - string reliabilityModel
122 - datetime collectedAt
123 - datetime createdAt
119 + string EvidenceVersionID PK
120 + string EvidenceID FK
121 + string Summary
122 + float ReliabilityScore
123 + datetime CreatedAt
124 124   }
125 125  
126 126   SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK {
127 - string scenarioEvidenceLinkId
128 - string scenarioIdFk
129 - string evidenceIdFk
127 + string LinkID PK
128 + string ScenarioVersionID FK
129 + string EvidenceVersionID FK
130 + float Relevance
131 + string Direction
130 130   }
131 131  
132 - SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION {
133 - string scenarioEvidenceLinkVersionId
134 - string scenarioEvidenceLinkIdFk
135 - string scenarioVersionIdFk
136 - string evidenceVersionIdFk
137 - float relevance
138 - string direction %% SUPPORTS / CONTRADICTS / MIXED / CONTEXT
139 - string rationale
140 - datetime createdAt
141 - }
142 -
143 143   VERDICT {
144 - string verdictId
145 - string scenarioIdFk
146 - string verdictType %% e.g. likelihood, classification
135 + string VerdictID PK
136 + string ScenarioID FK
147 147   }
148 148  
149 149   VERDICT_VERSION {
150 - string verdictVersionId
151 - string verdictIdFk
152 - string scenarioVersionIdFk
153 - float probability
154 - float confidence
155 - string reasoningSummary
156 - string uncertaintyFactorsJson
157 - datetime createdAt
140 + string VerdictVersionID PK
141 + string VerdictID FK
142 + float Verdict
143 + float Confidence
144 + string Reasoning
145 + datetime CreatedAt
158 158   }
159 159  
160 - %% Relationships
161 -
162 162   CLAIM_CLUSTER ||--o{ CLAIM : contains
163 - CLAIM ||--o{ CLAIM_VERSION : has_versions
164 - CLAIM ||--o{ SCENARIO : has_scenarios
165 - SCENARIO ||--o{ SCENARIO_VERSION : has_versions
149 + CLAIM ||--o{ CLAIM_VERSION : versions
166 166  
167 - EVIDENCE ||--o{ EVIDENCE_VERSION : has_versions
151 + CLAIM ||--o{ SCENARIO : has
152 + SCENARIO ||--o{ SCENARIO_VERSION : versions
168 168  
169 - SCENARIO ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : may_link
170 - EVIDENCE ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : may_link
154 + EVIDENCE ||--o{ EVIDENCE_VERSION : versions
171 171  
172 - SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION : has_versions
156 + SCENARIO_VERSION ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : links
157 + EVIDENCE_VERSION ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : linked
173 173  
174 - SCENARIO_VERSION ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION : uses_evidence
175 - EVIDENCE_VERSION ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION : is_used_in
176 -
177 - SCENARIO ||--o{ VERDICT : has_verdicts
178 - VERDICT ||--o{ VERDICT_VERSION : has_versions
179 - SCENARIO_VERSION ||--o{ VERDICT_VERSION : assessed_in
159 + SCENARIO ||--o{ VERDICT : assessed
160 + VERDICT ||--o{ VERDICT_VERSION : versions
180 180  {{/mermaid}}
181 181  
163 +{{info}}
164 +All key entities are explicitly versioned here (…VERSION tables).
165 +This reflects the versioning requirements in the textual Data Model chapter.
166 +{{/info}}
167 +
168 +
182 182  **Important points:**
183 183  
184 184  * Scenarios and Evidence are **linked via their versions**
... ... @@ -199,87 +199,164 @@
199 199  * Roles and role assignments
200 200  * Review actions on versioned entities
201 201  
189 +{{comment}} Data Use ERD (Mermaid, from /Specification/Diagrams/Data Use ERD) {{/comment}}
190 +{{include document="FactHarbor.Playground.Data Use ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome" reference="FactHarbor.Playground.data.Data Use ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome"/}}
191 +
192 += Data Use ERD (Roles, Review & Versioned Entities) =
193 +
194 +This diagram shows how users, roles, and review actions relate to the
195 +versioned core entities.
196 +
202 202  {{mermaid}}
203 203  erDiagram
199 + %% Core clusters shown for context
200 + CLAIM_CLUSTER {
201 + string ClusterID PK
202 + string EmbeddingVectorRef
203 + string Theme
204 + }
204 204  
205 - USER {
206 - string userId
207 - string displayName
208 - string email
209 - string userType %% "human" or "technical"
210 - datetime createdAt
206 + CLAIM {
207 + string ClaimID PK
208 + string ClusterID FK
209 + string Status
210 + datetime CreatedAt
211 211   }
212 212  
213 - TECHNICAL_USER {
214 - string technicalUserId
215 - string userIdFk
216 - string description
217 - string systemIdentifier
213 + CLAIM_VERSION {
214 + string ClaimVersionID PK
215 + string ClaimID FK
216 + string Text
217 + string ClaimType
218 + string Domain
219 + datetime CreatedAt
218 218   }
219 219  
220 - ROLE {
221 - string roleId
222 - string code %% e.g. READER, CONTRIBUTOR, REVIEWER, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, MODERATOR, SYSTEM_ADMIN, FEDERATION_OPERATOR, FEDERATION_ADMIN
223 - string description
224 - boolean isFederationRole
222 + SCENARIO {
223 + string ScenarioID PK
224 + string ClaimID FK
225 + string Name
226 + datetime CreatedAt
225 225   }
226 226  
227 - USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP {
228 - string membershipId
229 - string userIdFk
230 - string roleIdFk
231 - datetime grantedAt
232 - string grantedByUserIdFk
229 + SCENARIO_VERSION {
230 + string ScenarioVersionID PK
231 + string ScenarioID FK
232 + string Definitions
233 + string Assumptions
234 + string Boundaries
235 + datetime CreatedAt
233 233   }
234 234  
235 - REVIEW_ACTION {
236 - string reviewActionId
237 - string subjectType %% e.g. CLAIM_VERSION, SCENARIO_VERSION...
238 - string subjectVersionId
239 - string actionType %% APPROVE, REJECT, FLAG, COMMENT, REQUEST_CHANGES...
240 - string outcome %% ACCEPTED, REJECTED, ESCALATED...
241 - string comment
242 - string createdByUserIdFk
243 - datetime createdAt
238 + EVIDENCE {
239 + string EvidenceID PK
240 + string SourceType
241 + string URL
242 + float ReliabilityScore
244 244   }
245 245  
246 - %% Versioned data entities (references from the core model)
245 + EVIDENCE_VERSION {
246 + string EvidenceVersionID PK
247 + string EvidenceID FK
248 + string Summary
249 + float ReliabilityScore
250 + datetime CreatedAt
251 + }
247 247  
248 - CLAIM_VERSION {
249 - string claimVersionId
253 + VERDICT {
254 + string VerdictID PK
255 + string ScenarioID FK
250 250   }
251 251  
252 - SCENARIO_VERSION {
253 - string scenarioVersionId
258 + VERDICT_VERSION {
259 + string VerdictVersionID PK
260 + string VerdictID FK
261 + float Verdict
262 + float Confidence
263 + string Reasoning
264 + datetime CreatedAt
254 254   }
255 255  
256 - EVIDENCE_VERSION {
257 - string evidenceVersionId
267 + %% Users and roles
268 + USER {
269 + string UserID PK
270 + string Handle
271 + string Email
258 258   }
259 259  
260 - SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION {
261 - string scenarioEvidenceLinkVersionId
274 + TECHNICAL_USER {
275 + string UserID PK
276 + string SystemName
262 262   }
263 263  
264 - VERDICT_VERSION {
265 - string verdictVersionId
279 + CONTRIBUTING_USER {
280 + string UserID PK
281 + string DisplayName
266 266   }
267 267  
268 - %% Relationships
284 + TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR {
285 + string UserID PK
286 + string TrustLevel
287 + }
269 269  
270 - USER ||--o{ TECHNICAL_USER : may_be
271 - USER ||--o{ USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP : has_role
272 - ROLE ||--o{ USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP : assigned_to
289 + REVIEWER {
290 + string UserID PK
291 + string Domain
292 + }
273 273  
294 + EXPERT {
295 + string UserID PK
296 + string ExpertiseArea
297 + }
298 +
299 + FEDERATION_NODE {
300 + string NodeID PK
301 + string Region
302 + }
303 +
304 + FEDERATION_ADMIN {
305 + string UserID PK
306 + string Permissions
307 + }
308 +
309 + REVIEW_ACTION {
310 + string ReviewActionID PK
311 + string UserID FK
312 + string TargetEntityType
313 + string TargetEntityVersionID
314 + string ActionType
315 + string Comment
316 + datetime Timestamp
317 + }
318 +
319 + %% Inheritance / specialization (modelled as relationships)
320 + USER ||--o{ TECHNICAL_USER : "is a"
321 + USER ||--o{ CONTRIBUTING_USER : "is a"
322 +
323 + CONTRIBUTING_USER ||--o{ TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR : "subset"
324 + CONTRIBUTING_USER ||--o{ REVIEWER : "subset"
325 + CONTRIBUTING_USER ||--o{ EXPERT : "subset"
326 +
327 + TECHNICAL_USER ||--o{ FEDERATION_NODE : "operates"
328 + TECHNICAL_USER ||--o{ FEDERATION_ADMIN : "administers"
329 +
330 + %% Review actions on versioned entities
274 274   USER ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : performs
275 275  
276 - CLAIM_VERSION ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : is_reviewed_in
277 - SCENARIO_VERSION ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : is_reviewed_in
278 - EVIDENCE_VERSION ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : is_reviewed_in
279 - SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : is_reviewed_in
280 - VERDICT_VERSION ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : is_reviewed_in
333 + REVIEW_ACTION }o--|| CLAIM_VERSION : reviews
334 + REVIEW_ACTION }o--|| SCENARIO_VERSION : reviews
335 + REVIEW_ACTION }o--|| EVIDENCE_VERSION : reviews
336 + REVIEW_ACTION }o--|| VERDICT_VERSION : reviews
281 281  {{/mermaid}}
282 282  
339 +{{info}}
340 +This diagram focuses on *who* uses and reviews *which* versioned entities.
341 +USER is the base type; TECHNICAL_USER and CONTRIBUTING_USER are specializations.
342 +Other roles (REVIEWER, EXPERT, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, FEDERATION_ADMIN, FEDERATION_NODE)
343 +are modelled as specializations or technical subtypes.
344 +{{/info}}
345 +
346 +
283 283  Notes:
284 284  
285 285  * Most roles (READER, CONTRIBUTOR, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, REVIEWER, MODERATOR,
... ... @@ -309,7 +309,7 @@
309 309  * It may inherit some links from earlier scenarios, or start empty depending
310 310   on the change classification (cosmetic vs. conceptual).
311 311  * All verdicts for that scenario are recalculated and stored as new
312 - {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries.
376 +{{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries.
313 313  
314 314  * REVIEW_ACTIONs are always attached to the **exact version** that was seen by
315 315   the reviewer. This preserves a faithful audit trail if data later changes.
... ... @@ -346,3 +346,173 @@
346 346  Federation-specific entities (such as {{code}}FEDERATION_NODE{{/code}},
347 347  replication logs, and trust rules) are described in the Federation &
348 348  Decentralization chapter and build on top of the core data model defined here.
413 +
414 +----
415 +
416 +== 1. Overall analysis & review of the data model ==
417 +
418 +=== 1.1 Strengths of the current design ===
419 +
420 +* (((
421 +**Identity vs. version pattern**
422 +Using base entities plus version entities (CLAIM + CLAIM_VERSION, SCENARIO + SCENARIO_VERSION, etc.) is exactly how modern knowledge systems handle:
423 +
424 +* auditability
425 +* time evolution
426 +* re-evaluation triggers
427 +* federation and partial replication
428 +)))
429 +* (((
430 +**Scenario-centric reasoning**
431 +Separating //Claim// (what people argue about) from //Scenario// (interpretive frame) is very aligned with “truth landscape” style systems:
432 +
433 +* Scenarios explain //why people disagree//.
434 +* Verdicts are tied to specific scenario versions → avoids mixing incompatible assumptions.
435 +)))
436 +* **Evidence and verdicts as first-class entities**
437 +Evidence is explicit, linked to scenarios, and verdicts are per scenario. This matches good practice from fact-checking, scientific assessment panels, and trust graphs.
438 +* (((
439 +**Cluster level (CLAIM_CLUSTER)**
440 +Grouping related claims avoids duplication and lets you:
441 +
442 +* reuse scenarios across paraphrases
443 +* share embeddings / semantic search
444 +* keep the system scalable as the corpus grows.
445 +)))
446 +* (((
447 +**Explicit review layer (REVIEW_ACTION, roles, etc.)**
448 +Separating “data” from “who reviewed what” keeps the model clean, and is exactly what you want for:
449 +
450 +* governance
451 +* permissions
452 +* audit trails
453 +* future trust scoring per user / role.
454 +)))
455 +
456 +----
457 +
458 +=== 1.2 Design decisions I’m locking in (based on our discussions) ===
459 +
460 +To make the model consistent and “state-of-the-art”, I will assume the following as //current intended design//:
461 +
462 +1. (((
463 +**Claims vs Scenarios**
464 +
465 +* CLAIM is the stable identity for “what people argue about”.
466 +* CLAIM_VERSION are individual phrasings / formulations / metadata.
467 +* (((
468 +SCENARIO belongs to a **CLAIM**, not to a specific CLAIM_VERSION.
469 +Rationale:
470 +
471 +* Many different phrasings share the //same// scenario.
472 +* You avoid duplicating scenarios per wording.
473 +)))
474 +* SCENARIO_VERSION holds detailed definitions, assumptions, boundaries, etc.
475 +)))
476 +1. (((
477 +**Version-specific reasoning**
478 +
479 +* **Verdicts** are always attached to SCENARIO_VERSION (not base SCENARIO).
480 +* **Evidence links** are between SCENARIO_VERSION and EVIDENCE_VERSION.
481 +→ This is what we agreed when we said //“SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK should link the respective versions instead”//.
482 +)))
483 +1. (((
484 +**Clusters**
485 +
486 +* CLAIM_CLUSTER groups Claims (semantically close claims).
487 +* It is visible in **both diagrams** (Core Data Model and Data Use).
488 +)))
489 +1. (((
490 +**Review vs data**
491 +
492 +* (((
493 +All review happens **on versioned entities**:
494 +
495 +* CLAIM_VERSION
496 +* SCENARIO_VERSION
497 +* EVIDENCE_VERSION
498 +* SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION
499 +* VERDICT_VERSION
500 +)))
501 +* REVIEW_ACTION is the generic log of //who// did //what// on //which version//.
502 +)))
503 +1. (((
504 +**Users & roles**
505 +
506 +* USER has an attribute (or a linked entity) that distinguishes **technical users** from normal accounts.
507 +* We //keep// TECHNICAL_USER as a specialisation of USER (strictly technical accounts).
508 +* All human & technical accounts can hold roles via USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP.
509 +* (((
510 +Roles include:
511 +
512 +* READER
513 +* CONTRIBUTOR
514 +* TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR
515 +* REVIEWER
516 +* MODERATOR
517 +* SYSTEM_ADMIN / MAINTAINER
518 +* FEDERATION_OPERATOR
519 +* FEDERATION_ADMIN
520 +(all present in the Data Use ERD, but as rows of ROLE rather than separate entities).
521 +)))
522 +)))
523 +
524 +----
525 +
526 +=== 1.3 Gaps / potential problems ===
527 +
528 +These are the main issues & missing areas I see:
529 +
530 +1. (((
531 +**Versioning text in chapter 5 is currently too thin (‘…’ placeholders)**
532 +
533 +* (((
534 +The spec does not yet //verbally// spell out:
535 +
536 +* the identity vs version pattern, systematically
537 +* how re-evaluation triggers are derived from version changes
538 +* how this aligns with federation (which versions are replicated where).
539 +)))
540 +)))
541 +1. (((
542 +**No explicit “provenance granularity” in the model**
543 +
544 +* (((
545 +EVIDENCE is a single entity. For more advanced use cases, you may later want:
546 +
547 +* EVIDENCE_SOURCE (the whole article/report/video)
548 +* EVIDENCE_FRAGMENT (specific paragraph/clip with its own reliability, quote, etc.)
549 +)))
550 +* For now, I’ll keep EVIDENCE/EVIDENCE_VERSION as is, but I’ll mention this as a possible extension.
551 +)))
552 +1. (((
553 +**Review target polymorphism**
554 +
555 +* (((
556 +REVIEW_ACTION can apply to multiple entity types. In the diagram this shows as multiple relationships:
557 +
558 +* CLAIM_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
559 +* SCENARIO_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
560 +* etc.
561 +)))
562 +* A more “pure” relational modeling would use a generic “subjectType + subjectId” or an intermediate “REVIEW_TARGET” table.
563 +* For readability, I’ll keep the simpler multi-edge representation and mention the polymorphism in text.
564 +)))
565 +1. (((
566 +**Federation details missing from core ERD**
567 +
568 +* There is no explicit FEDERATION_NODE / REPLICATION_LOG in the Data Model chapter.
569 +* This is ok for “core logical data model”, but I’ll add a short note that federation metadata is handled in the Federation chapter and via additional entities.
570 +)))
571 +1. (((
572 +**Automation / AKEL artifacts left implicit**
573 +
574 +* (((
575 +The Data Model chapter currently doesn’t describe:
576 +
577 +* AKEL task queues
578 +* extraction runs
579 +* model versions
580 +)))
581 +* That’s fine for now; I’ll just clarify that those belong to a “Processing / AKEL” submodel, not the core logical data model.
582 +)))