Skip to Content
Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 20:35
From version 2.2
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 12:08
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 8.2
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 23:15
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
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.
... ... @@ -57,6 +57,13 @@
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 62   CLAIM_CLUSTER {
... ... @@ -147,9 +147,14 @@
147 147  
148 148   SCENARIO ||--o{ VERDICT : assessed
149 149   VERDICT ||--o{ VERDICT_VERSION : versions
150 -
151 151  {{/mermaid}}
152 152  
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 +
153 153  **Important points:**
154 154  
155 155  * Scenarios and Evidence are **linked via their versions**
... ... @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@
162 162  
163 163  ----
164 164  
165 -= 5.3 Data Use & Review ERD (expanded, versioned) =
181 += 5.3 Data Use & Review ERD =
166 166  
167 167  The **Data Use** model captures who does what with which versioned data:
168 168  
... ... @@ -170,6 +170,14 @@
170 170  * Roles and role assignments
171 171  * Review actions on versioned entities
172 172  
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 +
173 173  {{mermaid}}
174 174  erDiagram
175 175   %% Core clusters shown for context
... ... @@ -310,9 +310,17 @@
310 310   REVIEW_ACTION }o--|| SCENARIO_VERSION : reviews
311 311   REVIEW_ACTION }o--|| EVIDENCE_VERSION : reviews
312 312   REVIEW_ACTION }o--|| VERDICT_VERSION : reviews
313 -
314 314  {{/mermaid}}
315 315  
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 +
347 +
316 316  Notes:
317 317  
318 318  * Most roles (READER, CONTRIBUTOR, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, REVIEWER, MODERATOR,
... ... @@ -342,7 +342,7 @@
342 342  * It may inherit some links from earlier scenarios, or start empty depending
343 343   on the change classification (cosmetic vs. conceptual).
344 344  * All verdicts for that scenario are recalculated and stored as new
345 - {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries.
377 +{{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries.
346 346  
347 347  * REVIEW_ACTIONs are always attached to the **exact version** that was seen by
348 348   the reviewer. This preserves a faithful audit trail if data later changes.
... ... @@ -379,3 +379,191 @@
379 379  Federation-specific entities (such as {{code}}FEDERATION_NODE{{/code}},
380 380  replication logs, and trust rules) are described in the Federation &
381 381  Decentralization chapter and build on top of the core data model defined here.
414 +
415 +
416 +
417 +USER
418 +├── TECHNICAL_USER
419 +│  ├── FEDERATION_ADMIN
420 +│  └── AKEL_AGENT (optional future)
421 +
422 +READER
423 +└── CONTRIBUTING_USER
424 + ├── TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR
425 + ├── REVIEWER
426 + ├── EXPERT
427 + ├── MODERATOR
428 +
429 +
430 +ADMIN
431 +
432 +FEDERATION_ADMIN (administrative, but human)
433 +
434 +
435 +== 1. Overall analysis & review of the data model ==
436 +
437 +=== 1.1 Strengths of the current design ===
438 +
439 +* (((
440 +**Identity vs. version pattern**
441 +Using base entities plus version entities (CLAIM + CLAIM_VERSION, SCENARIO + SCENARIO_VERSION, etc.) is exactly how modern knowledge systems handle:
442 +
443 +* auditability
444 +* time evolution
445 +* re-evaluation triggers
446 +* federation and partial replication
447 +)))
448 +* (((
449 +**Scenario-centric reasoning**
450 +Separating //Claim// (what people argue about) from //Scenario// (interpretive frame) is very aligned with “truth landscape” style systems:
451 +
452 +* Scenarios explain //why people disagree//.
453 +* Verdicts are tied to specific scenario versions → avoids mixing incompatible assumptions.
454 +)))
455 +* **Evidence and verdicts as first-class entities**
456 +Evidence is explicit, linked to scenarios, and verdicts are per scenario. This matches good practice from fact-checking, scientific assessment panels, and trust graphs.
457 +* (((
458 +**Cluster level (CLAIM_CLUSTER)**
459 +Grouping related claims avoids duplication and lets you:
460 +
461 +* reuse scenarios across paraphrases
462 +* share embeddings / semantic search
463 +* keep the system scalable as the corpus grows.
464 +)))
465 +* (((
466 +**Explicit review layer (REVIEW_ACTION, roles, etc.)**
467 +Separating “data” from “who reviewed what” keeps the model clean, and is exactly what you want for:
468 +
469 +* governance
470 +* permissions
471 +* audit trails
472 +* future trust scoring per user / role.
473 +)))
474 +
475 +----
476 +
477 +=== 1.2 Design decisions I’m locking in (based on our discussions) ===
478 +
479 +To make the model consistent and “state-of-the-art”, I will assume the following as //current intended design//:
480 +
481 +1. (((
482 +**Claims vs Scenarios**
483 +
484 +* CLAIM is the stable identity for “what people argue about”.
485 +* CLAIM_VERSION are individual phrasings / formulations / metadata.
486 +* (((
487 +SCENARIO belongs to a **CLAIM**, not to a specific CLAIM_VERSION.
488 +Rationale:
489 +
490 +* Many different phrasings share the //same// scenario.
491 +* You avoid duplicating scenarios per wording.
492 +)))
493 +* SCENARIO_VERSION holds detailed definitions, assumptions, boundaries, etc.
494 +)))
495 +1. (((
496 +**Version-specific reasoning**
497 +
498 +* **Verdicts** are always attached to SCENARIO_VERSION (not base SCENARIO).
499 +* **Evidence links** are between SCENARIO_VERSION and EVIDENCE_VERSION.
500 +→ This is what we agreed when we said //“SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK should link the respective versions instead”//.
501 +)))
502 +1. (((
503 +**Clusters**
504 +
505 +* CLAIM_CLUSTER groups Claims (semantically close claims).
506 +* It is visible in **both diagrams** (Core Data Model and Data Use).
507 +)))
508 +1. (((
509 +**Review vs data**
510 +
511 +* (((
512 +All review happens **on versioned entities**:
513 +
514 +* CLAIM_VERSION
515 +* SCENARIO_VERSION
516 +* EVIDENCE_VERSION
517 +* SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION
518 +* VERDICT_VERSION
519 +)))
520 +* REVIEW_ACTION is the generic log of //who// did //what// on //which version//.
521 +)))
522 +1. (((
523 +**Users & roles**
524 +
525 +* USER has an attribute (or a linked entity) that distinguishes **technical users** from normal accounts.
526 +* We //keep// TECHNICAL_USER as a specialisation of USER (strictly technical accounts).
527 +* All human & technical accounts can hold roles via USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP.
528 +* (((
529 +Roles include:
530 +
531 +* READER
532 +* CONTRIBUTOR
533 +* TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR
534 +* REVIEWER
535 +* MODERATOR
536 +* SYSTEM_ADMIN / MAINTAINER
537 +* FEDERATION_OPERATOR
538 +* FEDERATION_ADMIN
539 +(all present in the Data Use ERD, but as rows of ROLE rather than separate entities).
540 +)))
541 +)))
542 +
543 +----
544 +
545 +=== 1.3 Gaps / potential problems ===
546 +
547 +These are the main issues & missing areas I see:
548 +
549 +1. (((
550 +**Versioning text in chapter 5 is currently too thin (‘…’ placeholders)**
551 +
552 +* (((
553 +The spec does not yet //verbally// spell out:
554 +
555 +* the identity vs version pattern, systematically
556 +* how re-evaluation triggers are derived from version changes
557 +* how this aligns with federation (which versions are replicated where).
558 +)))
559 +)))
560 +1. (((
561 +**No explicit “provenance granularity” in the model**
562 +
563 +* (((
564 +EVIDENCE is a single entity. For more advanced use cases, you may later want:
565 +
566 +* EVIDENCE_SOURCE (the whole article/report/video)
567 +* EVIDENCE_FRAGMENT (specific paragraph/clip with its own reliability, quote, etc.)
568 +)))
569 +* For now, I’ll keep EVIDENCE/EVIDENCE_VERSION as is, but I’ll mention this as a possible extension.
570 +)))
571 +1. (((
572 +**Review target polymorphism**
573 +
574 +* (((
575 +REVIEW_ACTION can apply to multiple entity types. In the diagram this shows as multiple relationships:
576 +
577 +* CLAIM_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
578 +* SCENARIO_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
579 +* etc.
580 +)))
581 +* A more “pure” relational modeling would use a generic “subjectType + subjectId” or an intermediate “REVIEW_TARGET” table.
582 +* For readability, I’ll keep the simpler multi-edge representation and mention the polymorphism in text.
583 +)))
584 +1. (((
585 +**Federation details missing from core ERD**
586 +
587 +* There is no explicit FEDERATION_NODE / REPLICATION_LOG in the Data Model chapter.
588 +* 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.
589 +)))
590 +1. (((
591 +**Automation / AKEL artifacts left implicit**
592 +
593 +* (((
594 +The Data Model chapter currently doesn’t describe:
595 +
596 +* AKEL task queues
597 +* extraction runs
598 +* model versions
599 +)))
600 +* That’s fine for now; I’ll just clarify that those belong to a “Processing / AKEL” submodel, not the core logical data model.
601 +)))