Skip to Content
Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 20:35
From version 3.1
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 12:08
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 9.4
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/12/11 11:05
Change comment: Renamed back-links.

Summary

Details

Page properties
Parent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -FactHarbor.Playground.WebHome
1 +xwiki:FactHarbor.Playground.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:
... ... @@ -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.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.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,
... ... @@ -379,3 +379,192 @@
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 +
418 +USER
419 +├── TECHNICAL_USER
420 +│  ├── FEDERATION_ADMIN
421 +│  └── AKEL_AGENT (optional future)
422 +
423 +READER
424 +└── CONTRIBUTING_USER
425 + ├── TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR
426 + ├── REVIEWER
427 + ├── EXPERT
428 + ├── MODERATOR
429 +
430 +
431 +ADMIN
432 +
433 +FEDERATION_ADMIN (administrative, but human)
434 +
435 +
436 +== 1. Overall analysis & review of the data model ==
437 +
438 +=== 1.1 Strengths of the current design ===
439 +
440 +* (((
441 +**Identity vs. version pattern**
442 +Using base entities plus version entities (CLAIM + CLAIM_VERSION, SCENARIO + SCENARIO_VERSION, etc.) is exactly how modern knowledge systems handle:
443 +
444 +* auditability
445 +* time evolution
446 +* re-evaluation triggers
447 +* federation and partial replication
448 +)))
449 +* (((
450 +**Scenario-centric reasoning**
451 +Separating //Claim// (what people argue about) from //Scenario// (interpretive frame) is very aligned with “truth landscape” style systems:
452 +
453 +* Scenarios explain //why people disagree//.
454 +* Verdicts are tied to specific scenario versions → avoids mixing incompatible assumptions.
455 +)))
456 +* **Evidence and verdicts as first-class entities**
457 +Evidence is explicit, linked to scenarios, and verdicts are per scenario. This matches good practice from fact-checking, scientific assessment panels, and trust graphs.
458 +* (((
459 +**Cluster level (CLAIM_CLUSTER)**
460 +Grouping related claims avoids duplication and lets you:
461 +
462 +* reuse scenarios across paraphrases
463 +* share embeddings / semantic search
464 +* keep the system scalable as the corpus grows.
465 +)))
466 +* (((
467 +**Explicit review layer (REVIEW_ACTION, roles, etc.)**
468 +Separating “data” from “who reviewed what” keeps the model clean, and is exactly what you want for:
469 +
470 +* governance
471 +* permissions
472 +* audit trails
473 +* future trust scoring per user / role.
474 +)))
475 +
476 +----
477 +
478 +=== 1.2 Design decisions I’m locking in (based on our discussions) ===
479 +
480 +To make the model consistent and “state-of-the-art”, I will assume the following as //current intended design//:
481 +
482 +1. (((
483 +**Claims vs Scenarios**
484 +
485 +* CLAIM is the stable identity for “what people argue about”.
486 +* CLAIM_VERSION are individual phrasings / formulations / metadata.
487 +* (((
488 +SCENARIO belongs to a **CLAIM**, not to a specific CLAIM_VERSION.
489 +Rationale:
490 +
491 +* Many different phrasings share the //same// scenario.
492 +* You avoid duplicating scenarios per wording.
493 +)))
494 +* SCENARIO_VERSION holds detailed definitions, assumptions, boundaries, etc.
495 +)))
496 +1. (((
497 +**Version-specific reasoning**
498 +
499 +* **Verdicts** are always attached to SCENARIO_VERSION (not base SCENARIO).
500 +* **Evidence links** are between SCENARIO_VERSION and EVIDENCE_VERSION.
501 +→ This is what we agreed when we said //“SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK should link the respective versions instead”//.
502 +)))
503 +1. (((
504 +**Clusters**
505 +
506 +* CLAIM_CLUSTER groups Claims (semantically close claims).
507 +* It is visible in **both diagrams** (Core Data Model and Data Use).
508 +)))
509 +1. (((
510 +**Review vs data**
511 +
512 +* (((
513 +All review happens **on versioned entities**:
514 +
515 +* CLAIM_VERSION
516 +* SCENARIO_VERSION
517 +* EVIDENCE_VERSION
518 +* SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION
519 +* VERDICT_VERSION
520 +)))
521 +* REVIEW_ACTION is the generic log of //who// did //what// on //which version//.
522 +)))
523 +1. (((
524 +**Users & roles**
525 +
526 +* USER has an attribute (or a linked entity) that distinguishes **technical users** from normal accounts.
527 +* We //keep// TECHNICAL_USER as a specialisation of USER (strictly technical accounts).
528 +* All human & technical accounts can hold roles via USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP.
529 +* (((
530 +Roles include:
531 +
532 +* READER
533 +* CONTRIBUTOR
534 +* TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR
535 +* REVIEWER
536 +* MODERATOR
537 +* SYSTEM_ADMIN / MAINTAINER
538 +* FEDERATION_OPERATOR
539 +* FEDERATION_ADMIN
540 +(all present in the Data Use ERD, but as rows of ROLE rather than separate entities).
541 +)))
542 +)))
543 +
544 +----
545 +
546 +=== 1.3 Gaps / potential problems ===
547 +
548 +These are the main issues & missing areas I see:
549 +
550 +1. (((
551 +**Versioning text in chapter 5 is currently too thin (‘…’ placeholders)**
552 +
553 +* (((
554 +The spec does not yet //verbally// spell out:
555 +
556 +* the identity vs version pattern, systematically
557 +* how re-evaluation triggers are derived from version changes
558 +* how this aligns with federation (which versions are replicated where).
559 +)))
560 +)))
561 +1. (((
562 +**No explicit “provenance granularity” in the model**
563 +
564 +* (((
565 +EVIDENCE is a single entity. For more advanced use cases, you may later want:
566 +
567 +* EVIDENCE_SOURCE (the whole article/report/video)
568 +* EVIDENCE_FRAGMENT (specific paragraph/clip with its own reliability, quote, etc.)
569 +)))
570 +* For now, I’ll keep EVIDENCE/EVIDENCE_VERSION as is, but I’ll mention this as a possible extension.
571 +)))
572 +1. (((
573 +**Review target polymorphism**
574 +
575 +* (((
576 +REVIEW_ACTION can apply to multiple entity types. In the diagram this shows as multiple relationships:
577 +
578 +* CLAIM_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
579 +* SCENARIO_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
580 +* etc.
581 +)))
582 +* A more “pure” relational modeling would use a generic “subjectType + subjectId” or an intermediate “REVIEW_TARGET” table.
583 +* For readability, I’ll keep the simpler multi-edge representation and mention the polymorphism in text.
584 +)))
585 +1. (((
586 +**Federation details missing from core ERD**
587 +
588 +* There is no explicit FEDERATION_NODE / REPLICATION_LOG in the Data Model chapter.
589 +* 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.
590 +)))
591 +1. (((
592 +**Automation / AKEL artifacts left implicit**
593 +
594 +* (((
595 +The Data Model chapter currently doesn’t describe:
596 +
597 +* AKEL task queues
598 +* extraction runs
599 +* model versions
600 +)))
601 +* That’s fine for now; I’ll just clarify that those belong to a “Processing / AKEL” submodel, not the core logical data model.
602 +)))