feat: add optional reviewStatus to dependency schema, make reason required - #21
Open
wwlwgo wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
feat: add optional reviewStatus to dependency schema, make reason required#21wwlwgo wants to merge 1 commit into
wwlwgo wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
The taxonomy currently provides no way to indicate whether a dependency edge has been reviewed by a human. Issue #5 ("Possible reversed edges") illustrates the problem: without review metadata, contributors cannot distinguish vetted edges from those needing attention.
Adding an optional ** field lets the community progressively improve data quality — edges start as , get promoted to \ after human check, and to \ after expert validation.
Additionally, making \ required (instead of nullable) encourages contributors to document why a prerequisite relationship exists, which is essential for reviewers to evaluate its validity.
Changes
Verification
I am running a similar practice in my own project (cn-primary-math-knowledge-graph) which uses the same governance approach — each dependency edge requires , , and \ as mandatory fields.
Migration
No data changes needed. Existing edges without \ are implicitly . Existing edges with \ reason can be updated during normal maintenance.
Closes #5 (partially — adds the metadata needed to track edge quality).