Knowledge Objects: sources we can follow

The file does not tell the whole story

A document contains information. Understanding its meaning also depends on where it comes from, which decisions it informed, who reviewed it and how it has been used. A Knowledge Object gives those relationships a place.

A guideline can be easy to open but difficult to use. What evidence supports it? Is this the right version? Does it apply in the same circumstances? Who is responsible for keeping it current? A Knowledge Object connects those details to the knowledge described in the guideline.

In Intertween’s model, the knowledge has its own identity. A PDF, a record in an organisational system and a restricted view can be different representations of the same object. Source material can remain with its custodian. The object’s description and references help us understand what we have found.

What needs to travel with knowledge?

Source and evidence

Where does the information come from, and what evidence can be examined?

Context and relationships

Which question, place or situation does it concern? What does it build on and connect to?

Conditions and responsibility

Who stewards the source? What may be shown and used, by whom and for which purpose?

Version, review and uncertainty

What has changed? Has the information been reviewed, challenged or superseded? What do we still not know?

The Knowledge Object describes a particular piece of knowledge. The relational metadata register describes how objects connect. A relationship can show the evidence behind an assessment or the method developed from it. Read about relationships and the register ↗

The same report, different needs

A Knowledge Object can be described differently for different recipients. This is a separate fictional example. It does not affect the parliamentary document chain.

SOURCE EXAMPLE · PRESERVED MATERIAL

Seven connected documents

An inquiry leads to a bill and then to an act. Here the documents can be followed as Knowledge Objects, with references showing how they connect. The sources are open data from the Swedish Parliament.

Select a document to inspect its saved metadata and connections. The complete flow in the next chapter is available for bill 2021/22:225.

Select a step in the chain

Bill · 2021/22:225

You are inspecting the saved metadata example for 2021/22:225.

<dokument>
  <dok_id>H903225</dok_id>
  <titel>Den offentliga sektorns tillgängliggörande av data </titel>
  <organ>Infrastrukturdepartementet</organ>
  <datum>2022-04-07 00:00:00</datum>
  <doktyp>prop</doktyp>
  <status>Klar</status>
</dokument>

DOCUMENT FLOW

From source to recipient

Your chain selection: 2021/22:225. The same bill follows all six stages. Your selected recipient view is retained as you move forwards and backwards.

The same source, a changing understanding

A reference can persist while our assessment of it changes. New evidence can strengthen a connection. A challenge can reveal missing context. A correction can prompt a method’s reassessment.

We need to distinguish a source’s contents, assertions about it and what was recorded at different times. An object’s identity, a particular version and its representations are distinct; a matching identifier does not establish equivalence between representations.

This example explains the model. Complete management of history and changing conditions across nodes remains to be developed.

The next person should be able to build on it

Consider a case officer who investigates a question and records an assessment. A colleague in another municipality finds it. With a Knowledge Object, the intention is that the colleague could also follow the sources, understand the local circumstances and see what needs to be assessed again.

The colleague’s correction or new experience can become a separate contribution linked to the source. Shared learning can grow while assessments remain local. The contribution, personal identity and authority to decide are separate questions. What may be shown can change over time.

This is a hypothetical use case. The examples show sources and relationships; full exchange between nodes and governance of rights over time remain to be built and tested.

DEEPER READING

Inspect the evidence or choose a new example

Explore evidence, changes and conditions in more depth. These teaching examples are separate and do not change the selected document or its flow.

Knowledge can remain useful as conditions change

A contribution is what someone adds: evidence, a correction or a method. Their identity, authority to act and any rights claims are separate questions. Tracing the origins of knowledge need not mean revealing every person behind it to everyone.

Consider a reviewer who contributes a correction and later leaves their role. The correction may remain relevant. Authority to make new changes ends with the mandate, while disclosure of personal information needs a separate decision. Withholding a name guarantees neither anonymity nor the termination of a valid rights claim.

This is a hypothetical case for the proposed architecture. The document flow above does not demonstrate automated lifecycle governance or enforcement of mandates and entitlements. Read the technical requirements ↗

{
  "itwnId": "urn:se:itwn-id:ko:EPPDNDXGFB2TFRXCVN6S89GEYE",
  "objectType": "proposition",
  "title": "Den offentliga sektorns tillgängliggörande av data",
  "issuer": "Infrastrukturdepartementet",
  "responsibleAuthority": "Infrastrukturdepartementet",
  "created": "2022-04-07",
  "registered": "2022-04-07",
  "status": "beslutad",
  "version": "1",
  "localReferences": [
    { "organisation": "Sveriges riksdag", "identifier": "H903225",
      "role": "dok_id" },
    { "organisation": "Regeringskansliet", "identifier": "2021/22:225",
      "role": "propositionsnummer" }
  ],
  "contentHash": null,
  "accessPolicy": "offentlig",
  "retentionStatus": "bevaras",
  "relations": [
    { "type": "tillhör",
      "target": "urn:se:itwn-id:sp:FTN9X03NM64TJRCXX4K562WZHH" },
    { "type": "tillhör",
      "target": "urn:se:itwn-id:ar:DR8299AH44YWFQXBTGXYY3EAB1" },
    { "type": "härstammar från",
      "target": "urn:se:itwn-id:ko:NA0NT01S0HFVRQZRD3JWRBNBRD" },
    { "type": "använd i beslut",
      "target": "urn:se:itwn-id:ar:9RN3VB8VMH66CNMY2P3794CH2Z" }
  ],
  "validationStatus": "asserted-by-source",
  "source": "https://data.riksdagen.se/dokumentstatus/H903225",
  "note": "Hänvisar i klartext till SOU 2020:55 och diarienummer I2020/02346."
}