Skip to Content
Last modified by Robert Schaub on 2025/12/24 20:35
From version 1.2
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 12:03
Change comment: Update document after refactoring.
To version 5.1
edited by Robert Schaub
on 2025/11/27 12:28
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,171 @@
1 +== 1. Overall analysis & review of the data model ==
2 +
3 +=== 1.1 Strengths of the current design ===
4 +
5 +* (((
6 +**Identity vs. version pattern**
7 +Using base entities plus version entities (CLAIM + CLAIM_VERSION, SCENARIO + SCENARIO_VERSION, etc.) is exactly how modern knowledge systems handle:
8 +
9 +* auditability
10 +* time evolution
11 +* re-evaluation triggers
12 +* federation and partial replication
13 +)))
14 +* (((
15 +**Scenario-centric reasoning**
16 +Separating //Claim// (what people argue about) from //Scenario// (interpretive frame) is very aligned with “truth landscape” style systems:
17 +
18 +* Scenarios explain //why people disagree//.
19 +* Verdicts are tied to specific scenario versions → avoids mixing incompatible assumptions.
20 +)))
21 +* **Evidence and verdicts as first-class entities**
22 +Evidence is explicit, linked to scenarios, and verdicts are per scenario. This matches good practice from fact-checking, scientific assessment panels, and trust graphs.
23 +* (((
24 +**Cluster level (CLAIM_CLUSTER)**
25 +Grouping related claims avoids duplication and lets you:
26 +
27 +* reuse scenarios across paraphrases
28 +* share embeddings / semantic search
29 +* keep the system scalable as the corpus grows.
30 +)))
31 +* (((
32 +**Explicit review layer (REVIEW_ACTION, roles, etc.)**
33 +Separating “data” from “who reviewed what” keeps the model clean, and is exactly what you want for:
34 +
35 +* governance
36 +* permissions
37 +* audit trails
38 +* future trust scoring per user / role.
39 +)))
40 +
41 +----
42 +
43 +=== 1.2 Design decisions I’m locking in (based on our discussions) ===
44 +
45 +To make the model consistent and “state-of-the-art”, I will assume the following as //current intended design//:
46 +
47 +1. (((
48 +**Claims vs Scenarios**
49 +
50 +* CLAIM is the stable identity for “what people argue about”.
51 +* CLAIM_VERSION are individual phrasings / formulations / metadata.
52 +* (((
53 +SCENARIO belongs to a **CLAIM**, not to a specific CLAIM_VERSION.
54 +Rationale:
55 +
56 +* Many different phrasings share the //same// scenario.
57 +* You avoid duplicating scenarios per wording.
58 +)))
59 +* SCENARIO_VERSION holds detailed definitions, assumptions, boundaries, etc.
60 +)))
61 +1. (((
62 +**Version-specific reasoning**
63 +
64 +* **Verdicts** are always attached to SCENARIO_VERSION (not base SCENARIO).
65 +* **Evidence links** are between SCENARIO_VERSION and EVIDENCE_VERSION.
66 +→ This is what we agreed when we said //“SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK should link the respective versions instead”//.
67 +)))
68 +1. (((
69 +**Clusters**
70 +
71 +* CLAIM_CLUSTER groups Claims (semantically close claims).
72 +* It is visible in **both diagrams** (Core Data Model and Data Use).
73 +)))
74 +1. (((
75 +**Review vs data**
76 +
77 +* (((
78 +All review happens **on versioned entities**:
79 +
80 +* CLAIM_VERSION
81 +* SCENARIO_VERSION
82 +* EVIDENCE_VERSION
83 +* SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION
84 +* VERDICT_VERSION
85 +)))
86 +* REVIEW_ACTION is the generic log of //who// did //what// on //which version//.
87 +)))
88 +1. (((
89 +**Users & roles**
90 +
91 +* USER has an attribute (or a linked entity) that distinguishes **technical users** from normal accounts.
92 +* We //keep// TECHNICAL_USER as a specialisation of USER (strictly technical accounts).
93 +* All human & technical accounts can hold roles via USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP.
94 +* (((
95 +Roles include:
96 +
97 +* READER
98 +* CONTRIBUTOR
99 +* TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR
100 +* REVIEWER
101 +* MODERATOR
102 +* SYSTEM_ADMIN / MAINTAINER
103 +* FEDERATION_OPERATOR
104 +* FEDERATION_ADMIN
105 +(all present in the Data Use ERD, but as rows of ROLE rather than separate entities).
106 +)))
107 +)))
108 +
109 +----
110 +
111 +=== 1.3 Gaps / potential problems ===
112 +
113 +These are the main issues & missing areas I see:
114 +
115 +1. (((
116 +**Versioning text in chapter 5 is currently too thin (‘…’ placeholders)**
117 +
118 +* (((
119 +The spec does not yet //verbally// spell out:
120 +
121 +* the identity vs version pattern, systematically
122 +* how re-evaluation triggers are derived from version changes
123 +* how this aligns with federation (which versions are replicated where).
124 +)))
125 +)))
126 +1. (((
127 +**No explicit “provenance granularity” in the model**
128 +
129 +* (((
130 +EVIDENCE is a single entity. For more advanced use cases, you may later want:
131 +
132 +* EVIDENCE_SOURCE (the whole article/report/video)
133 +* EVIDENCE_FRAGMENT (specific paragraph/clip with its own reliability, quote, etc.)
134 +)))
135 +* For now, I’ll keep EVIDENCE/EVIDENCE_VERSION as is, but I’ll mention this as a possible extension.
136 +)))
137 +1. (((
138 +**Review target polymorphism**
139 +
140 +* (((
141 +REVIEW_ACTION can apply to multiple entity types. In the diagram this shows as multiple relationships:
142 +
143 +* CLAIM_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
144 +* SCENARIO_VERSION → REVIEW_ACTION
145 +* etc.
146 +)))
147 +* A more “pure” relational modeling would use a generic “subjectType + subjectId” or an intermediate “REVIEW_TARGET” table.
148 +* For readability, I’ll keep the simpler multi-edge representation and mention the polymorphism in text.
149 +)))
150 +1. (((
151 +**Federation details missing from core ERD**
152 +
153 +* There is no explicit FEDERATION_NODE / REPLICATION_LOG in the Data Model chapter.
154 +* 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.
155 +)))
156 +1. (((
157 +**Automation / AKEL artifacts left implicit**
158 +
159 +* (((
160 +The Data Model chapter currently doesn’t describe:
161 +
162 +* AKEL task queues
163 +* extraction runs
164 +* model versions
165 +)))
166 +* That’s fine for now; I’ll just clarify that those belong to a “Processing / AKEL” submodel, not the core logical data model.
167 +)))
168 +
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}}
212 +{{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}} →
213 +{{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION{{/code}}
46 46  * {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} →
47 - {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}}
215 +{{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.
... ... @@ -57,128 +57,9 @@
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  
60 -{{mermaid}}
61 -erDiagram
228 +{{comment}} Core Data Model ERD (Mermaid, from /Specification/Diagrams/Data Model) {{/comment}}
229 +{{include document="FactHarbor.Playground.Core Data Model ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome"/}}
62 62  
63 - CLAIM_CLUSTER {
64 - string claimClusterId
65 - string theme
66 - string embeddingVectorRef
67 - string language
68 - datetime createdAt
69 - }
70 -
71 - CLAIM {
72 - string claimId
73 - string claimClusterIdFk
74 - string status
75 - datetime createdAt
76 - }
77 -
78 - CLAIM_VERSION {
79 - string claimVersionId
80 - string claimIdFk
81 - string text
82 - string language
83 - string claimType
84 - string domain
85 - string authorType
86 - datetime createdAt
87 - }
88 -
89 - SCENARIO {
90 - string scenarioId
91 - string claimIdFk
92 - string key
93 - string title
94 - boolean isDeprecated
95 - }
96 -
97 - SCENARIO_VERSION {
98 - string scenarioVersionId
99 - string scenarioIdFk
100 - string versionTag
101 - string definitionsJson
102 - string assumptionsJson
103 - string boundariesJson
104 - string notes
105 - datetime createdAt
106 - }
107 -
108 - EVIDENCE {
109 - string evidenceId
110 - string canonicalSourceId
111 - string mainUrl
112 - string evidenceType
113 - string language
114 - }
115 -
116 - EVIDENCE_VERSION {
117 - string evidenceVersionId
118 - string evidenceIdFk
119 - string snapshotLocation
120 - string extractionSummary
121 - string reliabilityModel
122 - datetime collectedAt
123 - datetime createdAt
124 - }
125 -
126 - SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK {
127 - string scenarioEvidenceLinkId
128 - string scenarioIdFk
129 - string evidenceIdFk
130 - }
131 -
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 -
143 - VERDICT {
144 - string verdictId
145 - string scenarioIdFk
146 - string verdictType %% e.g. likelihood, classification
147 - }
148 -
149 - VERDICT_VERSION {
150 - string verdictVersionId
151 - string verdictIdFk
152 - string scenarioVersionIdFk
153 - float probability
154 - float confidence
155 - string reasoningSummary
156 - string uncertaintyFactorsJson
157 - datetime createdAt
158 - }
159 -
160 - %% Relationships
161 -
162 - CLAIM_CLUSTER ||--o{ CLAIM : contains
163 - CLAIM ||--o{ CLAIM_VERSION : has_versions
164 - CLAIM ||--o{ SCENARIO : has_scenarios
165 - SCENARIO ||--o{ SCENARIO_VERSION : has_versions
166 -
167 - EVIDENCE ||--o{ EVIDENCE_VERSION : has_versions
168 -
169 - SCENARIO ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : may_link
170 - EVIDENCE ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK : may_link
171 -
172 - SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK ||--o{ SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION : has_versions
173 -
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
180 -{{/mermaid}}
181 -
182 182  **Important points:**
183 183  
184 184  * Scenarios and Evidence are **linked via their versions**
... ... @@ -199,87 +199,9 @@
199 199  * Roles and role assignments
200 200  * Review actions on versioned entities
201 201  
202 -{{mermaid}}
203 -erDiagram
251 +{{comment}} Data Use ERD (Mermaid, from /Specification/Diagrams/Data Use ERD) {{/comment}}
252 +{{include document="FactHarbor.Playground.Data Use ERD Page (from Specification chat).WebHome"/}}
204 204  
205 - USER {
206 - string userId
207 - string displayName
208 - string email
209 - string userType %% "human" or "technical"
210 - datetime createdAt
211 - }
212 -
213 - TECHNICAL_USER {
214 - string technicalUserId
215 - string userIdFk
216 - string description
217 - string systemIdentifier
218 - }
219 -
220 - 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
225 - }
226 -
227 - USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP {
228 - string membershipId
229 - string userIdFk
230 - string roleIdFk
231 - datetime grantedAt
232 - string grantedByUserIdFk
233 - }
234 -
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
244 - }
245 -
246 - %% Versioned data entities (references from the core model)
247 -
248 - CLAIM_VERSION {
249 - string claimVersionId
250 - }
251 -
252 - SCENARIO_VERSION {
253 - string scenarioVersionId
254 - }
255 -
256 - EVIDENCE_VERSION {
257 - string evidenceVersionId
258 - }
259 -
260 - SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION {
261 - string scenarioEvidenceLinkVersionId
262 - }
263 -
264 - VERDICT_VERSION {
265 - string verdictVersionId
266 - }
267 -
268 - %% Relationships
269 -
270 - USER ||--o{ TECHNICAL_USER : may_be
271 - USER ||--o{ USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP : has_role
272 - ROLE ||--o{ USER_ROLE_MEMBERSHIP : assigned_to
273 -
274 - USER ||--o{ REVIEW_ACTION : performs
275 -
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
281 -{{/mermaid}}
282 -
283 283  Notes:
284 284  
285 285  * Most roles (READER, CONTRIBUTOR, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, REVIEWER, MODERATOR,
... ... @@ -309,7 +309,7 @@
309 309  * It may inherit some links from earlier scenarios, or start empty depending
310 310   on the change classification (cosmetic vs. conceptual).
311 311  * All verdicts for that scenario are recalculated and stored as new
312 - {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries.
283 +{{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries.
313 313  
314 314  * REVIEW_ACTIONs are always attached to the **exact version** that was seen by
315 315   the reviewer. This preserves a faithful audit trail if data later changes.