Skip to Content
Version 5.1 by Robert Schaub on 2025/11/27 12:28
Show last authors
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
169 = 5. Data Model =
170
171 The FactHarbor data model centers on four fully versioned, immutable entities:
172
173 * **Claim**
174 * **Scenario**
175 * **Evidence**
176 * **Verdict**
177
178 These entities form the structured **“truth landscape”** for each claim.
179 The model is explicitly **versioned**, **traceable**, and **federation-ready**.
180
181 To keep the system auditable and explainable, FactHarbor uses a consistent
182 **identity vs. version** pattern:
183
184 * Identity entities (e.g. {{code}}CLAIM{{/code}}, {{code}}SCENARIO{{/code}})
185 define *what* something is in a stable sense.
186 * Version entities (e.g. {{code}}CLAIM_VERSION{{/code}}, {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}})
187 define *how that thing looked at a given point in time*.
188
189 All reasoning (e.g. verdicts, review actions) is attached to **versions**, never to
190 mutable identities.
191
192 ----
193
194 = 5.1 Core entities and versioning pattern =
195
196 (% class="wikitable" %)
197 | **Logical concept** | **Identity entity** | **Version entity** | **Notes**
198 | 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.
199 | Scenario (interpretive frame) | {{code}}SCENARIO{{/code}} | {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} | A SCENARIO belongs to a CLAIM. Its versions capture evolving definitions, assumptions, and boundaries.
200 | Evidence (source / datapoint) | {{code}}EVIDENCE{{/code}} | {{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}} | Identity of a source vs. specific extractions / updates over time.
201 | Verdict (assessment) | {{code}}VERDICT{{/code}} | {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} | A VERDICT is defined per SCENARIO; VERDICT_VERSION captures the history of assessments.
202 | Scenario–Evidence link | {{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK{{/code}} | {{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION{{/code}} | Links bind scenario versions to evidence versions with relevance & direction.
203 | Claim cluster (semantic group) | {{code}}CLAIM_CLUSTER{{/code}} | – | Groups semantically related claims; mainly for discovery and navigation.
204
205 Key design decisions:
206
207 * A {{code}}CLAIM{{/code}} belongs to exactly one {{code}}CLAIM_CLUSTER{{/code}}.
208 * A {{code}}SCENARIO{{/code}} belongs to exactly one {{code}}CLAIM{{/code}}
209 (scenarios live at the *claim* level, not per individual phrasing).
210 * Verdicts and Scenario–Evidence links are always attached to **versions**:
211 * {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} +
212 {{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}} →
213 {{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION{{/code}}
214 * {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} →
215 {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}}
216
217 This ensures that when a Scenario or Evidence changes, old verdicts and links
218 remain intact as historical records and can be revisited.
219
220 ----
221
222 = 5.2 Core Data Model ERD (expanded, versioned) =
223
224 The following Mermaid ER diagram shows the main entities and their relationships.
225 The convention is that fields ending in {{code}}Id{{/code}} are primary keys,
226 and fields with {{code}}...IdFk{{/code}} are foreign keys.
227
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"/}}
230
231 **Important points:**
232
233 * Scenarios and Evidence are **linked via their versions**
234 ({{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} and {{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}}).
235 * Verdicts are **per ScenarioVersion** and stored in {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}}.
236 * {{code}}CLAIM_CLUSTER{{/code}} is shared across diagrams; it is shown here and in the Data Use / Review model.
237
238 All version entities are immutable: once created, they are never changed, only
239 superseded by newer versions.
240
241 ----
242
243 = 5.3 Data Use & Review ERD (expanded, versioned) =
244
245 The **Data Use** model captures who does what with which versioned data:
246
247 * Users (including technical users)
248 * Roles and role assignments
249 * Review actions on versioned entities
250
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"/}}
253
254 Notes:
255
256 * Most roles (READER, CONTRIBUTOR, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, REVIEWER, MODERATOR,
257 SYSTEM_ADMIN, FEDERATION_OPERATOR, FEDERATION_ADMIN, …) are represented as rows
258 in {{code}}ROLE{{/code}}.
259 * {{code}}TECHNICAL_USER{{/code}} captures strictly technical accounts (API keys,
260 node-to-node federation agents, batch jobs). All other roles can, in principle,
261 be held by both human and technical users where appropriate.
262 * A {{code}}READER{{/code}} normally does **not** perform REVIEW_ACTIONs, while
263 roles like REVIEWER, TRUSTED_CONTRIBUTOR, MODERATOR, and some federation roles
264 do.
265
266 ----
267
268 = 5.4 Versioning and re-evaluation behavior =
269
270 This section ties the data model to the re-evaluation logic
271 (described in more detail in the Versioning and Automation chapters).
272
273 * When a new {{code}}EVIDENCE_VERSION{{/code}} is created:
274 * All related {{code}}SCENARIO_EVIDENCE_LINK_VERSION{{/code}} entries referencing
275 that evidence version are candidates for re-assessment.
276 * Related {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries may become **outdated** and
277 are queued for re-evaluation.
278
279 * When a new {{code}}SCENARIO_VERSION{{/code}} is created:
280 * It may inherit some links from earlier scenarios, or start empty depending
281 on the change classification (cosmetic vs. conceptual).
282 * All verdicts for that scenario are recalculated and stored as new
283 {{code}}VERDICT_VERSION{{/code}} entries.
284
285 * REVIEW_ACTIONs are always attached to the **exact version** that was seen by
286 the reviewer. This preserves a faithful audit trail if data later changes.
287
288 * In a federated environment, nodes can choose:
289 * which identity entities to replicate (CLAIM, SCENARIO, EVIDENCE, VERDICT)
290 * which versioned entities to replicate (e.g. only accepted VERDICT_VERSIONs,
291 only EVIDENCE_VERSIONs above a reliability threshold, etc.)
292
293 ----
294
295 = 5.5 Behavioral Notes =
296
297 == 5.5.1 Late-Arriving Evidence ==
298
299 New evidence versions can make existing verdicts **outdated** and may trigger
300 re-evaluation cascades. This is handled by the global trigger and automation
301 architecture (see the Versioning & Automation chapters).
302
303 == 5.5.2 Scenario Evolution ==
304
305 Scenario changes create new SCENARIO_VERSIONs; dependent verdicts and
306 Scenario–Evidence links are re-assessed. Old versions remain available for
307 historical comparison and reproducibility.
308
309 == 5.5.3 Federation ==
310
311 Federated nodes can replicate subsets of the graph, including:
312
313 * Claims and Scenarios of local interest
314 * Evidence metadata (without full content)
315 * Verdict lineages used for local decision-making
316
317 Federation-specific entities (such as {{code}}FEDERATION_NODE{{/code}},
318 replication logs, and trust rules) are described in the Federation &
319 Decentralization chapter and build on top of the core data model defined here.