Skip to Content
Version 8.1 by Robert Schaub on 2025/11/27 12:55
Show last authors
1 (((
2
3 )))
4
5 = 5. Data Model =
6
7 The FactHarbor data model centers on four fully versioned, immutable entities:
8
9 * **Claim**
10 * **Scenario**
11 * **Evidence**
12 * **Verdict**
13
14 These entities form the structured **“truth landscape”** for each claim.
15 The model is explicitly **versioned**, **traceable**, and **federation-ready**.
16
17 To keep the system auditable and explainable, FactHarbor uses a consistent
18 **identity vs. version** pattern:
19
20 * Identity entities (e.g. {{code}}CLAIM{{/code}}, {{code}}SCENARIO{{/code}})
21 define *what* something is in a stable sense.
22 * Version entities (e.g. {{code}}CLAIM_VERSION{{/code}}, {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}})
23 define *how that thing looked at a given point in time*.
24
25 All reasoning (e.g. verdicts, review actions) is attached to **versions**, never to
26 mutable identities.
27
28 ----
29
30 = 5.1 Core entities and versioning pattern =
31
32 (% class="wikitable" %)
33 | **Logical concept** | **Identity entity** | **Version entity** | **Notes**
34 | Claim (what people argue about) | {{code}}CLAIM{{/code}} | {{code}}CLAIM_VERSION{{/code}} | Claim text, phrasing, and metadata live in {{code}}CLAIM_VERSION{{/code}}. The identity {{code}}CLAIM{{/code}} stays stable across rephrasings.
35 | Scenario (interpretive frame) | {{code}}SCENARIO{{/code}} | {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} | A SCENARIO belongs to a CLAIM. Its versions capture evolving definitions, assumptions, and boundaries.
36 | Evidence (source / datapoint) | {{code}}EVIDENCE{{/code}} | {{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}} | Identity of a source vs. specific extractions / updates over time.
37 | Verdict (assessment) | {{code}}VERDICT{{/code}} | {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} | A VERDICT is defined per SCENARIO; VERDICT_VERSION captures the history of assessments.
38 | Scenario–Evidence link | {{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK{{/code}} | {{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION{{/code}} | Links bind scenario versions to evidence versions with relevance & direction.
39 | Claim cluster (semantic group) | {{code}}CLAIM_CLUSTER{{/code}} | – | Groups semantically related claims; mainly for discovery and navigation.
40
41 Key design decisions:
42
43 * A {{code}}CLAIM{{/code}} belongs to exactly one {{code}}CLAIM_CLUSTER{{/code}}.
44 * A {{code}}SCENARIO{{/code}} belongs to exactly one {{code}}CLAIM{{/code}}
45 (scenarios live at the *claim* level, not per individual phrasing).
46 * Verdicts and Scenario–Evidence links are always attached to **versions**:
47 * {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} +
48 {{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}} →
49 {{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION{{/code}}
50 * {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} →
51 {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}}
52
53 This ensures that when a Scenario or Evidence changes, old verdicts and links
54 remain intact as historical records and can be revisited.
55
56 ----
57
58 = 5.2 Core Data Model ERD (expanded, versioned) =
59
60 The following Mermaid ER diagram shows the main entities and their relationships.
61 The convention is that fields ending in {{code}}Id{{/code}} are primary keys,
62 and fields with {{code}}...IdFk{{/code}} are foreign keys.
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 **Important points:**
68
69 * Scenarios and Evidence are **linked via their versions**
70 ({{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} and {{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}}).
71 * Verdicts are **per ScenarioVersion** and stored in {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}}.
72 * {{code}}CLAIM_CLUSTER{{/code}} is shared across diagrams; it is shown here and in the Data Use / Review model.
73
74 All version entities are immutable: once created, they are never changed, only
75 superseded by newer versions.
76
77 ----
78
79 = 5.3 Data Use & Review ERD =
80
81 The **Data Use** model captures who does what with which versioned data:
82
83 * Users (including technical users)
84 * Roles and role assignments
85 * Review actions on versioned entities
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"/}}
89
90
91 Notes:
92
93 * Most roles (READER, CONTRIBUTOR, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, REVIEWER, MODERATOR,
94 SYSTEM_ADMIN, FEDERATION_OPERATOR, FEDERATION_ADMIN, …) are represented as rows
95 in {{code}}ROLE{{/code}}.
96 * {{code}}TECHNICAL_USER{{/code}} captures strictly technical accounts (API keys,
97 node-to-node federation agents, batch jobs). All other roles can, in principle,
98 be held by both human and technical users where appropriate.
99 * A {{code}}READER{{/code}} normally does **not** perform REVIEW_ACTIONs, while
100 roles like REVIEWER, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, MODERATOR, and some federation roles
101 do.
102
103 ----
104
105 = 5.4 Versioning and re-evaluation behavior =
106
107 This section ties the data model to the re-evaluation logic
108 (described in more detail in the Versioning and Automation chapters).
109
110 * When a new {{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}} is created:
111 * All related {{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION{{/code}} entries referencing
112 that evidence version are candidates for re-assessment.
113 * Related {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries may become **outdated** and
114 are queued for re-evaluation.
115
116 * When a new {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} is created:
117 * It may inherit some links from earlier scenarios, or start empty depending
118 on the change classification (cosmetic vs. conceptual).
119 * All verdicts for that scenario are recalculated and stored as new
120 {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries.
121
122 * REVIEW_ACTIONs are always attached to the **exact version** that was seen by
123 the reviewer. This preserves a faithful audit trail if data later changes.
124
125 * In a federated environment, nodes can choose:
126 * which identity entities to replicate (CLAIM, SCENARIO, EVIDENCE, VERDICT)
127 * which versioned entities to replicate (e.g. only accepted VERDICT_VERSIONs,
128 only EVIDENCE_VERSIONs above a reliability threshold, etc.)
129
130 ----
131
132 = 5.5 Behavioral Notes =
133
134 == 5.5.1 Late-Arriving Evidence ==
135
136 New evidence versions can make existing verdicts **outdated** and may trigger
137 re-evaluation cascades. This is handled by the global trigger and automation
138 architecture (see the Versioning & Automation chapters).
139
140 == 5.5.2 Scenario Evolution ==
141
142 Scenario changes create new SCENARIO_VERSIONs; dependent verdicts and
143 Scenario–Evidence links are re-assessed. Old versions remain available for
144 historical comparison and reproducibility.
145
146 == 5.5.3 Federation ==
147
148 Federated nodes can replicate subsets of the graph, including:
149
150 * Claims and Scenarios of local interest
151 * Evidence metadata (without full content)
152 * Verdict lineages used for local decision-making
153
154 Federation-specific entities (such as {{code}}FEDERATION_NODE{{/code}},
155 replication logs, and trust rules) are described in the Federation &
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 )))