Changes for page Data Model (From Specification Chat)
Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 20:35
From version 9.1
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 23:17
on 2025/11/27 23:17
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
To version 1.2
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 12:03
on 2025/11/27 12:03
Change comment:
Update document after refactoring.
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
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. ... ... @@ -61,111 +61,128 @@ 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"/}} 66 - 67 -= Core Data Model ERD (Versioned) = 68 - 69 -This diagram shows the full core data model with all versioned entities. 70 - 71 71 {{mermaid}} 72 72 erDiagram 62 + 73 73 CLAIM_CLUSTER { 74 - string ClusterID PK 75 - string EmbeddingVectorRef 76 - string Theme 64 + string claimClusterId 65 + string theme 66 + string embeddingVectorRef 67 + string language 68 + datetime createdAt 77 77 } 78 78 79 79 CLAIM { 80 - string ClaimID PK81 - string ClusterI DFK82 - string Status83 - datetime CreatedAt72 + string claimId 73 + string claimClusterIdFk 74 + string status 75 + datetime createdAt 84 84 } 85 85 86 86 CLAIM_VERSION { 87 - string ClaimVersionID PK 88 - string ClaimID FK 89 - string Text 90 - string ClaimType 91 - string Domain 92 - datetime CreatedAt 79 + string claimVersionId 80 + string claimIdFk 81 + string text 82 + string language 83 + string claimType 84 + string domain 85 + string authorType 86 + datetime createdAt 93 93 } 94 94 95 95 SCENARIO { 96 - string ScenarioID PK 97 - string ClaimID FK 98 - string Name 99 - datetime CreatedAt 90 + string scenarioId 91 + string claimIdFk 92 + string key 93 + string title 94 + boolean isDeprecated 100 100 } 101 101 102 102 SCENARIO_VERSION { 103 - string ScenarioVersionID PK 104 - string ScenarioID FK 105 - string Definitions 106 - string Assumptions 107 - string Boundaries 108 - datetime CreatedAt 98 + string scenarioVersionId 99 + string scenarioIdFk 100 + string versionTag 101 + string definitionsJson 102 + string assumptionsJson 103 + string boundariesJson 104 + string notes 105 + datetime createdAt 109 109 } 110 110 111 111 EVIDENCE { 112 - string EvidenceID PK 113 - string SourceType 114 - string URL 115 - float ReliabilityScore 109 + string evidenceId 110 + string canonicalSourceId 111 + string mainUrl 112 + string evidenceType 113 + string language 116 116 } 117 117 118 118 EVIDENCE_VERSION { 119 - string EvidenceVersionID PK 120 - string EvidenceID FK 121 - string Summary 122 - float ReliabilityScore 123 - datetime CreatedAt 117 + string evidenceVersionId 118 + string evidenceIdFk 119 + string snapshotLocation 120 + string extractionSummary 121 + string reliabilityModel 122 + datetime collectedAt 123 + datetime createdAt 124 124 } 125 125 126 126 SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK { 127 - string LinkID PK 128 - string ScenarioVersionID FK 129 - string EvidenceVersionID FK 130 - float Relevance 131 - string Direction 127 + string scenarioEvidenceLinkId 128 + string scenarioIdFk 129 + string evidenceIdFk 132 132 } 133 133 132 + 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 + 134 134 VERDICT { 135 - string VerdictID PK 136 - string ScenarioID FK 144 + string verdictId 145 + string scenarioIdFk 146 + string verdictType %% e.g. likelihood, classification 137 137 } 138 138 139 139 VERDICT_VERSION { 140 - string VerdictVersionID PK 141 - string VerdictID FK 142 - float Verdict 143 - float Confidence 144 - string Reasoning 145 - datetime CreatedAt 150 + string verdictVersionId 151 + string verdictIdFk 152 + string scenarioVersionIdFk 153 + float probability 154 + float confidence 155 + string reasoningSummary 156 + string uncertaintyFactorsJson 157 + datetime createdAt 146 146 } 147 147 160 + %% Relationships 161 + 148 148 CLAIM_CLUSTER ||--o{ CLAIM : contains 149 - CLAIM ||--o{ CLAIM_VERSION : versions 163 + CLAIM ||--o{ CLAIM_VERSION : has_versions 164 + CLAIM ||--o{ SCENARIO : has_scenarios 165 + SCENARIO ||--o{ SCENARIO_VERSION : has_versions 150 150 151 - CLAIM ||--o{ SCENARIO : has 152 - SCENARIO ||--o{ SCENARIO_VERSION : versions 167 + EVIDENCE ||--o{ EVIDENCE_VERSION : has_versions 153 153 154 - EVIDENCE ||--o{ EVIDENCE_VERSION : versions 169 + SCENARIO ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : may_link 170 + EVIDENCE ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : may_link 155 155 156 - SCENARIO_VERSION ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : links 157 - EVIDENCE_VERSION ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : linked 172 + SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION : has_versions 158 158 159 - SCENARIO ||--o{ VERDICT : assessed 160 - VERDICT ||--o{ VERDICT_VERSION : versions 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 161 161 {{/mermaid}} 162 162 163 -{{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 - 169 169 **Important points:** 170 170 171 171 * Scenarios and Evidence are **linked via their versions** ... ... @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ 178 178 179 179 ---- 180 180 181 -= 5.3 Data Use & Review ERD = 194 += 5.3 Data Use & Review ERD (expanded, versioned) = 182 182 183 183 The **Data Use** model captures who does what with which versioned data: 184 184 ... ... @@ -186,165 +186,87 @@ 186 186 * Roles and role assignments 187 187 * Review actions on versioned entities 188 188 189 -{{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 - 197 197 {{mermaid}} 198 198 erDiagram 199 - %% Core clusters shown for context 200 - CLAIM_CLUSTER { 201 - string ClusterID PK 202 - string EmbeddingVectorRef 203 - string Theme 204 - } 205 205 206 - CLAIM { 207 - string ClaimID PK 208 - string ClusterID FK 209 - string Status 210 - datetime CreatedAt 205 + USER { 206 + string userId 207 + string displayName 208 + string email 209 + string userType %% "human" or "technical" 210 + datetime createdAt 211 211 } 212 212 213 - CLAIM_VERSION { 214 - string ClaimVersionID PK 215 - string ClaimID FK 216 - string Text 217 - string ClaimType 218 - string Domain 219 - datetime CreatedAt 213 + TECHNICAL_USER { 214 + string technicalUserId 215 + string userIdFk 216 + string description 217 + string systemIdentifier 220 220 } 221 221 222 - SCENARIO {223 - string ScenarioID PK224 - string C laimID FK225 - string Name226 - datetimeCreatedAt220 + 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 227 227 } 228 228 229 - SCENARIO_VERSION { 230 - string ScenarioVersionID PK 231 - string ScenarioID FK 232 - string Definitions 233 - string Assumptions 234 - string Boundaries 235 - datetime CreatedAt 227 + USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP { 228 + string membershipId 229 + string userIdFk 230 + string roleIdFk 231 + datetime grantedAt 232 + string grantedByUserIdFk 236 236 } 237 237 238 - EVIDENCE { 239 - string EvidenceID PK 240 - string SourceType 241 - string URL 242 - float ReliabilityScore 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 243 243 } 244 244 245 - EVIDENCE_VERSION { 246 - string EvidenceVersionID PK 247 - string EvidenceID FK 248 - string Summary 249 - float ReliabilityScore 250 - datetime CreatedAt 251 - } 246 + %% Versioned data entities (references from the core model) 252 252 253 - VERDICT { 254 - string VerdictID PK 255 - string ScenarioID FK 248 + CLAIM_VERSION { 249 + string claimVersionId 256 256 } 257 257 258 - VERDICT_VERSION { 259 - string VerdictVersionID PK 260 - string VerdictID FK 261 - float Verdict 262 - float Confidence 263 - string Reasoning 264 - datetime CreatedAt 252 + SCENARIO_VERSION { 253 + string scenarioVersionId 265 265 } 266 266 267 - %% Users and roles 268 - USER { 269 - string UserID PK 270 - string Handle 271 - string Email 256 + EVIDENCE_VERSION { 257 + string evidenceVersionId 272 272 } 273 273 274 - TECHNICAL_USER { 275 - string UserID PK 276 - string SystemName 260 + SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION { 261 + string scenarioEvidenceLinkVersionId 277 277 } 278 278 279 - CONTRIBUTING_USER { 280 - string UserID PK 281 - string DisplayName 264 + VERDICT_VERSION { 265 + string verdictVersionId 282 282 } 283 283 284 - TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR { 285 - string UserID PK 286 - string TrustLevel 287 - } 268 + %% Relationships 288 288 289 - REVIEWER { 290 - string UserID PK 291 - string Domain 292 - } 270 + USER ||--o{ TECHNICAL_USER : may_be 271 + USER ||--o{ USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP : has_role 272 + ROLE ||--o{ USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP : assigned_to 293 293 294 - 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 331 331 USER ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : performs 332 332 333 - 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 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 337 337 {{/mermaid}} 338 338 339 -{{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 - 348 348 Notes: 349 349 350 350 * Most roles (READER, CONTRIBUTOR, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, REVIEWER, MODERATOR, ... ... @@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ 374 374 * It may inherit some links from earlier scenarios, or start empty depending 375 375 on the change classification (cosmetic vs. conceptual). 376 376 * All verdicts for that scenario are recalculated and stored as new 377 -{{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries. 312 + {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries. 378 378 379 379 * REVIEW_ACTIONs are always attached to the **exact version** that was seen by 380 380 the reviewer. This preserves a faithful audit trail if data later changes. ... ... @@ -411,192 +411,3 @@ 411 411 Federation-specific entities (such as {{code}}FEDERATION_NODE{{/code}}, 412 412 replication logs, and trust rules) are described in the Federation & 413 413 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 -)))