Skip to Content
Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 20:35
From version 8.1
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 12:55
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 2.1
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 12:05
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,7 +5,3 @@
1 -(((
2 -
3 -)))
4 -
5 5  = 5. Data Model =
6 6  
7 7  The FactHarbor data model centers on four fully versioned, immutable entities:
... ... @@ -45,10 +45,10 @@
45 45   (scenarios live at the *claim* level, not per individual phrasing).
46 46  * Verdicts and Scenario–Evidence links are always attached to **versions**:
47 47  * {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} +
48 -{{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}} →
49 -{{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION{{/code}}
44 + {{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}} →
45 + {{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION{{/code}}
50 50  * {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} →
51 -{{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}}
47 + {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}}
52 52  
53 53  This ensures that when a Scenario or Evidence changes, old verdicts and links
54 54  remain intact as historical records and can be revisited.
... ... @@ -61,9 +61,99 @@
61 61  The convention is that fields ending in {{code}}Id{{/code}} are primary keys,
62 62  and fields with {{code}}...IdFk{{/code}} are foreign keys.
63 63  
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"/}}
60 +{{mermaid}}
61 +erDiagram
62 + CLAIM_CLUSTER {
63 + string ClusterID PK
64 + string EmbeddingVectorRef
65 + string Theme
66 + }
66 66  
68 + CLAIM {
69 + string ClaimID PK
70 + string ClusterID FK
71 + string Status
72 + datetime CreatedAt
73 + }
74 +
75 + CLAIM_VERSION {
76 + string ClaimVersionID PK
77 + string ClaimID FK
78 + string Text
79 + string ClaimType
80 + string Domain
81 + datetime CreatedAt
82 + }
83 +
84 + SCENARIO {
85 + string ScenarioID PK
86 + string ClaimID FK
87 + string Name
88 + datetime CreatedAt
89 + }
90 +
91 + SCENARIO_VERSION {
92 + string ScenarioVersionID PK
93 + string ScenarioID FK
94 + string Definitions
95 + string Assumptions
96 + string Boundaries
97 + datetime CreatedAt
98 + }
99 +
100 + EVIDENCE {
101 + string EvidenceID PK
102 + string SourceType
103 + string URL
104 + float ReliabilityScore
105 + }
106 +
107 + EVIDENCE_VERSION {
108 + string EvidenceVersionID PK
109 + string EvidenceID FK
110 + string Summary
111 + float ReliabilityScore
112 + datetime CreatedAt
113 + }
114 +
115 + SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK {
116 + string LinkID PK
117 + string ScenarioVersionID FK
118 + string EvidenceVersionID FK
119 + float Relevance
120 + string Direction
121 + }
122 +
123 + VERDICT {
124 + string VerdictID PK
125 + string ScenarioID FK
126 + }
127 +
128 + VERDICT_VERSION {
129 + string VerdictVersionID PK
130 + string VerdictID FK
131 + float Verdict
132 + float Confidence
133 + string Reasoning
134 + datetime CreatedAt
135 + }
136 +
137 + CLAIM_CLUSTER ||--o{ CLAIM : contains
138 + CLAIM ||--o{ CLAIM_VERSION : versions
139 +
140 + CLAIM ||--o{ SCENARIO : has
141 + SCENARIO ||--o{ SCENARIO_VERSION : versions
142 +
143 + EVIDENCE ||--o{ EVIDENCE_VERSION : versions
144 +
145 + SCENARIO_VERSION ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : links
146 + EVIDENCE_VERSION ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : linked
147 +
148 + SCENARIO ||--o{ VERDICT : assessed
149 + VERDICT ||--o{ VERDICT_VERSION : versions
150 +
151 +{{/mermaid}}
152 +
67 67  **Important points:**
68 68  
69 69  * Scenarios and Evidence are **linked via their versions**
... ... @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@
76 76  
77 77  ----
78 78  
79 -= 5.3 Data Use & Review ERD =
165 += 5.3 Data Use & Review ERD (expanded, versioned) =
80 80  
81 81  The **Data Use** model captures who does what with which versioned data:
82 82  
... ... @@ -84,10 +84,87 @@
84 84  * Roles and role assignments
85 85  * Review actions on versioned entities
86 86  
87 -{{comment}} Data Use ERD (Mermaid, from /Specification/Diagrams/Data Use ERD) {{/comment}}
88 -{{include document="FactHarbor.Playground.Data Use ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome" reference="FactHarbor.Playground.data.Data Use ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome"/}}
173 +{{mermaid}}
174 +erDiagram
89 89  
176 + USER {
177 + string userId
178 + string displayName
179 + string email
180 + string userType %% "human" or "technical"
181 + datetime createdAt
182 + }
90 90  
184 + TECHNICAL_USER {
185 + string technicalUserId
186 + string userIdFk
187 + string description
188 + string systemIdentifier
189 + }
190 +
191 + ROLE {
192 + string roleId
193 + string code %% e.g. READER, CONTRIBUTOR, REVIEWER, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, MODERATOR, SYSTEM_ADMIN, FEDERATION_OPERATOR, FEDERATION_ADMIN
194 + string description
195 + boolean isFederationRole
196 + }
197 +
198 + USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP {
199 + string membershipId
200 + string userIdFk
201 + string roleIdFk
202 + datetime grantedAt
203 + string grantedByUserIdFk
204 + }
205 +
206 + REVIEW_ACTION {
207 + string reviewActionId
208 + string subjectType %% e.g. CLAIM_VERSION, SCENARIO_VERSION...
209 + string subjectVersionId
210 + string actionType %% APPROVE, REJECT, FLAG, COMMENT, REQUEST_CHANGES...
211 + string outcome %% ACCEPTED, REJECTED, ESCALATED...
212 + string comment
213 + string createdByUserIdFk
214 + datetime createdAt
215 + }
216 +
217 + %% Versioned data entities (references from the core model)
218 +
219 + CLAIM_VERSION {
220 + string claimVersionId
221 + }
222 +
223 + SCENARIO_VERSION {
224 + string scenarioVersionId
225 + }
226 +
227 + EVIDENCE_VERSION {
228 + string evidenceVersionId
229 + }
230 +
231 + SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION {
232 + string scenarioEvidenceLinkVersionId
233 + }
234 +
235 + VERDICT_VERSION {
236 + string verdictVersionId
237 + }
238 +
239 + %% Relationships
240 +
241 + USER ||--o{ TECHNICAL_USER : may_be
242 + USER ||--o{ USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP : has_role
243 + ROLE ||--o{ USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP : assigned_to
244 +
245 + USER ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : performs
246 +
247 + CLAIM_VERSION ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : is_reviewed_in
248 + SCENARIO_VERSION ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : is_reviewed_in
249 + EVIDENCE_VERSION ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : is_reviewed_in
250 + SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : is_reviewed_in
251 + VERDICT_VERSION ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : is_reviewed_in
252 +{{/mermaid}}
253 +
91 91  Notes:
92 92  
93 93  * Most roles (READER, CONTRIBUTOR, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, REVIEWER, MODERATOR,
... ... @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@
117 117  * It may inherit some links from earlier scenarios, or start empty depending
118 118   on the change classification (cosmetic vs. conceptual).
119 119  * All verdicts for that scenario are recalculated and stored as new
120 -{{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries.
283 + {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries.
121 121  
122 122  * REVIEW_ACTIONs are always attached to the **exact version** that was seen by
123 123   the reviewer. This preserves a faithful audit trail if data later changes.
... ... @@ -154,173 +154,3 @@
154 154  Federation-specific entities (such as {{code}}FEDERATION_NODE{{/code}},
155 155  replication logs, and trust rules) are described in the Federation &
156 156  Decentralization chapter and build on top of the core data model defined here.
157 -
158 -----
159 -
160 -== 1. Overall analysis & review of the data model ==
161 -
162 -=== 1.1 Strengths of the current design ===
163 -
164 -* (((
165 -**Identity vs. version pattern**
166 -Using base entities plus version entities (CLAIM + CLAIM_VERSION, SCENARIO + SCENARIO_VERSION, etc.) is exactly how modern knowledge systems handle:
167 -
168 -* auditability
169 -* time evolution
170 -* re-evaluation triggers
171 -* federation and partial replication
172 -)))
173 -* (((
174 -**Scenario-centric reasoning**
175 -Separating //Claim// (what people argue about) from //Scenario// (interpretive frame) is very aligned with “truth landscape” style systems:
176 -
177 -* Scenarios explain //why people disagree//.
178 -* Verdicts are tied to specific scenario versions → avoids mixing incompatible assumptions.
179 -)))
180 -* **Evidence and verdicts as first-class entities**
181 -Evidence is explicit, linked to scenarios, and verdicts are per scenario. This matches good practice from fact-checking, scientific assessment panels, and trust graphs.
182 -* (((
183 -**Cluster level (CLAIM_CLUSTER)**
184 -Grouping related claims avoids duplication and lets you:
185 -
186 -* reuse scenarios across paraphrases
187 -* share embeddings / semantic search
188 -* keep the system scalable as the corpus grows.
189 -)))
190 -* (((
191 -**Explicit review layer (REVIEW_ACTION, roles, etc.)**
192 -Separating “data” from “who reviewed what” keeps the model clean, and is exactly what you want for:
193 -
194 -* governance
195 -* permissions
196 -* audit trails
197 -* future trust scoring per user / role.
198 -)))
199 -
200 -----
201 -
202 -=== 1.2 Design decisions I’m locking in (based on our discussions) ===
203 -
204 -To make the model consistent and “state-of-the-art”, I will assume the following as //current intended design//:
205 -
206 -1. (((
207 -**Claims vs Scenarios**
208 -
209 -* CLAIM is the stable identity for “what people argue about”.
210 -* CLAIM_VERSION are individual phrasings / formulations / metadata.
211 -* (((
212 -SCENARIO belongs to a **CLAIM**, not to a specific CLAIM_VERSION.
213 -Rationale:
214 -
215 -* Many different phrasings share the //same// scenario.
216 -* You avoid duplicating scenarios per wording.
217 -)))
218 -* SCENARIO_VERSION holds detailed definitions, assumptions, boundaries, etc.
219 -)))
220 -1. (((
221 -**Version-specific reasoning**
222 -
223 -* **Verdicts** are always attached to SCENARIO_VERSION (not base SCENARIO).
224 -* **Evidence links** are between SCENARIO_VERSION and EVIDENCE_VERSION.
225 -→ This is what we agreed when we said //“SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK should link the respective versions instead”//.
226 -)))
227 -1. (((
228 -**Clusters**
229 -
230 -* CLAIM_CLUSTER groups Claims (semantically close claims).
231 -* It is visible in **both diagrams** (Core Data Model and Data Use).
232 -)))
233 -1. (((
234 -**Review vs data**
235 -
236 -* (((
237 -All review happens **on versioned entities**:
238 -
239 -* CLAIM_VERSION
240 -* SCENARIO_VERSION
241 -* EVIDENCE_VERSION
242 -* SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION
243 -* VERDICT_VERSION
244 -)))
245 -* REVIEW_ACTION is the generic log of //who// did //what// on //which version//.
246 -)))
247 -1. (((
248 -**Users & roles**
249 -
250 -* USER has an attribute (or a linked entity) that distinguishes **technical users** from normal accounts.
251 -* We //keep// TECHNICAL_USER as a specialisation of USER (strictly technical accounts).
252 -* All human & technical accounts can hold roles via USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP.
253 -* (((
254 -Roles include:
255 -
256 -* READER
257 -* CONTRIBUTOR
258 -* TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR
259 -* REVIEWER
260 -* MODERATOR
261 -* SYSTEM_ADMIN / MAINTAINER
262 -* FEDERATION_OPERATOR
263 -* FEDERATION_ADMIN
264 -(all present in the Data Use ERD, but as rows of ROLE rather than separate entities).
265 -)))
266 -)))
267 -
268 -----
269 -
270 -=== 1.3 Gaps / potential problems ===
271 -
272 -These are the main issues & missing areas I see:
273 -
274 -1. (((
275 -**Versioning text in chapter 5 is currently too thin (‘…’ placeholders)**
276 -
277 -* (((
278 -The spec does not yet //verbally// spell out:
279 -
280 -* the identity vs version pattern, systematically
281 -* how re-evaluation triggers are derived from version changes
282 -* how this aligns with federation (which versions are replicated where).
283 -)))
284 -)))
285 -1. (((
286 -**No explicit “provenance granularity” in the model**
287 -
288 -* (((
289 -EVIDENCE is a single entity. For more advanced use cases, you may later want:
290 -
291 -* EVIDENCE_SOURCE (the whole article/report/video)
292 -* EVIDENCE_FRAGMENT (specific paragraph/clip with its own reliability, quote, etc.)
293 -)))
294 -* For now, I’ll keep EVIDENCE/EVIDENCE_VERSION as is, but I’ll mention this as a possible extension.
295 -)))
296 -1. (((
297 -**Review target polymorphism**
298 -
299 -* (((
300 -REVIEW_ACTION can apply to multiple entity types. In the diagram this shows as multiple relationships:
301 -
302 -* CLAIM_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
303 -* SCENARIO_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
304 -* etc.
305 -)))
306 -* A more “pure” relational modeling would use a generic “subjectType + subjectId” or an intermediate “REVIEW_TARGET” table.
307 -* For readability, I’ll keep the simpler multi-edge representation and mention the polymorphism in text.
308 -)))
309 -1. (((
310 -**Federation details missing from core ERD**
311 -
312 -* There is no explicit FEDERATION_NODE / REPLICATION_LOG in the Data Model chapter.
313 -* 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.
314 -)))
315 -1. (((
316 -**Automation / AKEL artifacts left implicit**
317 -
318 -* (((
319 -The Data Model chapter currently doesn’t describe:
320 -
321 -* AKEL task queues
322 -* extraction runs
323 -* model versions
324 -)))
325 -* That’s fine for now; I’ll just clarify that those belong to a “Processing / AKEL” submodel, not the core logical data model.
326 -)))