Re: Technical Notes, public web agents

Paola,

Thank you for the detailed note and for sharing the Ontic Categories work.

A couple of clarifications first:


   1.

   The agent ontology namespace is already published at

   https://s-agent-comm.github.io/agent-ontology/latest/index.html

   Current version is *v0.4.0*.
   2.

   The repository README already includes a reference to the *Unified Ontic
   Ontology* (DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30760739). I will add the specific
   commit reference shortly for clarity.

On the technical questions you raised:


   -

   *Proof / Verification artefacts* are indeed important for agent systems
   (e.g., attestations, delegation proofs, execution records).
   -

   Your observation about the *KR Interface* gap is also accurate. In
   practice, AgentIDL’s compiler and schema layer operate as the bridge
   between conceptual models and executable agent interactions.

We already have engineering implementations for these layers in the current
system, so these categories likely deserve clearer treatment at the
ontology level. However, this probably warrants a *separate thread* so the
discussion can focus specifically on ontology structure.

More broadly, AgentIDL is designed primarily as an *executable interface
layer for agent interoperability*, rather than a top-level ontology. For
that reason, AgentIDL currently *does not have a hard dependency on Agent
Ontology*, and we want to preserve flexibility for mapping to multiple
ontology frameworks in related vertical domains.

That said, my current inclination is that we should eventually define
a *minimal
agent ontology* (which is 0.4.0) providing the basic constraints needed for
interoperable systems. In practice, those constraints would likely surface
directly at the *IDL interface layer*.

Regarding publication and process: since AgentIDL may evolve within the CG
ecosystem, it would make sense to discuss the *publication and review
process within the CG* before any formal adoption.

Looking forward to continuing the discussion.

Best,

Tyson

Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> 於 2026年3月7日週六 下午3:17寫道：

> Thanks Andrei and everyone
>
> I  ll continue to try to capture key aspects of the Agentic AI landscape,
> although the scope of work for AI KR includes
> capturing and representing also non agentic AI, So in essence we are
> looking at
>
> (See the table below from the W3C AI KR CG)
> [image: AI landscape W3C AI KR CG]
> The key challenge for many of us is to form and maintain a coherent view
> of the all the multiple versions of the truth
> developing across layers *protocols, fragmented representations, efforts,
> standards etc  without losing the plot
>
> We cannot have meaningful  interoperability let alone trust and security
> in Agentic AI without an ontology (the plot)
>
> Especially when confounding factors come into play *accidental or
> deliberately injected misrepresentations
>
> In this AI agents frenzy, it is easy to lose orientation
>
> I have started working towards this disambiguation on the AI KR CG and
> shared some of the work
> on this list in this short talk  *link below in case someone missed it
>
>
> 9th Feb 2026  *can be replayed at x1.2 speed Paola Di Maio on Agentic
> Ontology
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G6igFKX9C7B5FC1La_3gO7DjFJsNQ1Ft/view?usp=sharing
>
> I am sharing this work across a number of forums, although unfortunately I
> am often met with  walls
> of silence, trolling, plagiarism and misattribution *I mentioned this
> concern on the AI KR public list
> and chatted with Tyson about it in a zoom call
>
> Nice to see Tyson is moving on with the agent ontology which he  discussed
> on the AI KR list
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aikr/2025Dec/0011.html
>
> Now here  *I joined the S agent CG just now! bear with me while I catch up
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-s-agent-comm/2026Feb/0000.html
>
> We should continue to work on that, making sure we do not lose the
> continuity between efforts
>
> I shared with the AI KR GG list and then privately with Tyson specific
> resources
> * specifically the Ontic Categories
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-s-agent-comm/2025Dec/0001.html
> In the form of a diagram and a table of unified ontic categories,  I also
> created a DOI
> https://figshare.com/articles/online_resource/Ontic_Categories/30760739?file=60028508
> as everyone is surely aware of  rampant IP theft all over the internet
>
>  The diagram in the screenshot below is still public in the AI KR CG wiki
> , but I have shared privately the table of ontic categories pending
> negotiation with others who may be interested to collaborate on applying
> for funding, still unsure if this should be in the public domain, so happy
> to discuss possibilities in a call
>
>
> I also note that the IDL Ontology  now references the ontic categories I
> presented in the AI KR CG. Am I right?
>
> I have mapped the chronology of the interactions here,
> IDL Mapping to Ontic Categories
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y2rAXfZGZn1bmZJ4FJvWa0zwguM64L0J/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100993141196967133475&rtpof=true&sd=true>
>
> Tyson perhaps can you confirm the mappings?
>
>
> I look forward to the collaboration and to get a better grasp of the AI KR
> domain and how it is evolving
>
> Best regards
>
> Paola Di Maio
> Chair, W3C AI KR CG
>
>
> Agent IDL/Ontic Analysis doc
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y2rAXfZGZn1bmZJ4FJvWa0zwguM64L0J/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100993141196967133475&rtpof=true&sd=true>
> *excerpt
> 4.2 Technical Gaps Identified
>
> The Ontic Categories framework currently has no adequate category for
> verifiable proofs, cryptographic attestations, or execution records (the
> [Proof] annotation gap). Should a Trust/Verification sub-bubble be added?
>
> The "KR Interface" bubble (the category for things like the AgentIDL
> compiler -- mechanisms that bridge ontological definition and executable
> code) was identified as missing on November 28, 2025. AgentIDL's compiler
> is a concrete instantiation of this gap. Should this now be formalised as a
> new category in the Ontic Categories map?
>
> The contract:Contract class is simultaneously mapped as ArtifactSocial and
> UFO:SocialRelator. These are ontologically distinct (artifact vs.
> relation). Which reading should be canonical in the AgentIDL context?
>
> The ledger:Ledger class is mapped as ArtifactSocial but BFO suggests
> InformationArtifact. Is there a sub-category distinction between
> information-bearing artifacts and purely social artifacts needed in the
> Ontic Categories?
>
> The s-agent-comm.github.io/agent-ontology namespace (which AgentIDL
> imports) returns 404. Before any CG adoption or endorsement, this ontology
> must be published and reviewed. Should publication of the agent-ontology be
> a prerequisite for further CG engagement with AgentIDL?
>
> 4.3 Proposed Next Steps
>
> Based on the above, the following actions are proposed for discussion by
> the CG:
>
> Tyson to confirm exact repository creation dates and commit history, and
> to add explicit citation of the Unified Ontic Ontology (DOI:
> 10.6084/m9.figshare.30760739) in the AgentIDL README and ontology headers.
>
> The CG to formalise the "KR Interface" category in the Ontic Categories
> map, using AgentIDL's compiler as a concrete example/use case.
>
> The CG to consider whether a Trust/Verification sub-category should be
> added to the Ontic Categories to cover ProofBinding and related
> verification artefacts.
>
> Clarify the governance relationship between the s-agent-comm CG (i as a
> separate W3C CG) and the AI KR CG to avoid parallel, uncoordinated
> standards development.
>
> Review W3C CG IP policy with respect to public mailing list content used
> as the basis for external specifications,
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2026 at 9:27 AM 陳信屹 <tyson@slashlife.ai> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrei, Paola
>>
>> Thanks for sharing, looking for the release of interoperability report.
>>
>> Here the related works in s-agent-comm CG:
>>
>> The agent ontology with the currently available documentation is here:
>> https://github.com/s-agent-comm/agent-ontology
>>
>> The AgentIDL reference implementation is here:
>> https://github.com/s-agent-comm/agent-idl
>>
>> While the ontology layer describes what an agent is (roles, capabilities,
>> contracts, etc.), AgentIDL defines how an agent acts and speaks. It serves
>> as a "Semantic API" that can be compared to: OpenAPI/IDL for the web, but
>> operating at a semantic level. gRPC's .proto files, but with support for
>> intents, trust, and grammar. Solidity's function signatures, but for agent
>> behavioral protocols. Semantically, it combines: Ontology (meaning) +
>> Grammar (syntax) + Protocol (execution) This creates an agent-level
>> Application Behavior Interface (ABI).
>>
>> Andrei Ciortea <andrei.ciortea@inria.fr> 於 2026年3月7日週六 上午3:31寫道：
>>
>>> Dear Paola,
>>>
>>> Thank you for pushing this topic forward. Knowledge representation for
>>> AI agents and multi-agent systems is clearly of interest to several active
>>> participants in the WebAgents CG.
>>>
>>> The ongoing work on the interoperability report will hopefully help
>>> outline requirements and needs for knowledge engineering efforts in this
>>> space. The report will likely be a good place to connect and consolidate
>>> related contributions.
>>>
>>> I also agree that it would be useful to strengthen interaction and
>>> alignment not only within the WebAgents CG, but also with related groups
>>> such as the AIKR CG and the S-Agent-Comm CG. I will bring up this point in
>>> the next regular meeting.
>>>
>>> Regarding the initiative mentioned by Antoine in the last meeting — this
>>> refers to the Hypermedia Multi-Agent Systems (hMAS) ontology, which is
>>> currently organized into 3 modules:
>>> - hmas-core: http://purl.org/hmas/core
>>> - hmas-interaction: https://purl.org/hmas/interaction
>>> - hmas-regulation: https://purl.org/hmas/regulation
>>>
>>> The GitHub repository with the currently available documentation is
>>> here: http://github.com/hyperagents/hmas
>>>
>>> For additional context, this paper shows how we use the hMAS ontology in
>>> one of our frameworks for Web-based MAS (presented in a past regular
>>> meeting): https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-032-01082-7_7
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Andrei
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *De: *"Paola Di Maio" <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
>>> *À: *public-webagents@w3.org
>>> *Cc: *"Autonomous Agents on the Web Community Group" <
>>> public-webagents@w3.org>
>>> *Envoyé: *Dimanche 1 Mars 2026 09:47:54
>>> *Objet: *Technical Notes, public web agents
>>>
>>> Dear Andrei and everyone
>>>
>>> Thanks for listening to my presentation at the last meeting
>>>
>>> The bottom line from a AI KR perspective is that
>>> there can be no security/safety/interoperability in AI until we have a
>>> clear Knowledge representation/conceptual model /ontology for the domain
>>>
>>> I am a bit surprised that the information technology community has been
>>> silent about knowledge representation in AI/Agents
>>>
>>> Just to say that it would be great to continue discussions via this
>>> mailing list  in between meetings
>>> as things continue to happen that need  our constant attention
>>>
>>> Please remind us where we are in this CG from time to time!
>>>
>>> I would also love to hear from other participants what they are working
>>> on, especially on the agent interoperability front
>>> *I have more to share on that topic if/when you d like to hear about it
>>>
>>> The latest  note from me is shared via some other CGs
>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-aikr/2026Feb/0015.html
>>>
>>> and the TN here
>>> https://github.com/Starborn/webmcp/blob/main/TN4.md
>>>
>>>  can benefit from being discussed
>>> The priority is to make sure that things do not happen above our head
>>> without understanding what is going on
>>> because there is not enough shared knowledge/understanding about what is
>>> taking place
>>>
>>> This knowledge fragmentation is something that can be engineered to
>>> create the vacuum where very undesirable things can happen
>>> *that Agenti AI trolls take over the web :-)
>>>
>>> I would also like to continue contributing to the interoperability
>>> report AND hear more about the hyperagent
>>> *was it the hyperagent we were talking about that you mentioned?
>>>
>>> There is so much going on, it's nice to be reminded how the thread are
>>> holding together
>>>
>>> We do important work but there is lack of interaction and things happen
>>> very fast in the world of web ai agents etc
>>>
>>> Have a great weekend everyone
>>>
>>> Paola
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2026 at 6:58 PM Andrei Ciortea (W3C Calendar) <
>>> noreply+calendar@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> View this event in your browser
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/c5855bad-fd18-45ce-973f-e0f716dd6bed/20260227T160000/>
>>>> W3C WebAgents CG: Biweekly Call (Fridays) Upcoming Canceled
>>>>
>>>> 27 February 2026, 16:00 -17:00 Europe/Zurich
>>>>
>>>> Event is recurring Every 4 weeks on Friday, starting from 30 January
>>>> 2026, until 1 January 2027
>>>> Autonomous Agents on the Web Community Group
>>>> <https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/webagents/calendar/>
>>>>
>>>> Biweekly call of the W3C Autonomous Agents on the Web (WebAgents)
>>>> Community Group.
>>>>
>>>> For more information about regular meetings, see the group's wiki
>>>> <https://github.com/w3c-cg/webagents/wiki/Regular-CG-Meetings>.
>>>>   Participants Organizers
>>>>
>>>>    - Andrei Ciortea
>>>>    - Rem Collier
>>>>    - Ege Korkan
>>>>    - Antoine Zimmermann
>>>>
>>>> Groups
>>>>
>>>>    - Autonomous Agents on the Web Community Group
>>>>    <https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/webagents/> (View Calendar
>>>>    <https://www.w3.org/groups/cg/webagents/calendar/>)
>>>>
>>>> Report feedback and issues on GitHub <https://github.com/w3c/calendar>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>