Skip to content

spec: Add "AI Actor Naming Standard" specification#19

Closed
mindpower wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
spec/naming-standard
Closed

spec: Add "AI Actor Naming Standard" specification#19
mindpower wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
spec/naming-standard

Conversation

@mindpower

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This PR introduces the "AI Actor Naming Standard," a foundational specification for ensuring interoperability, discovery within the AI agent ecosystem.

Summary

As AI agents begin to interact across organizational boundaries, the lack of a common naming protocol creates ambiguity and hinders discovery. This standard solves this by defining a secure, multi-layer naming system that separates an agent's human-readable name from its stable, machine-readable logical address.

Core ### Concepts
The standard is built on two primary fields:

  1. displayName (Short Name): A human-readable name used for discovery in UIs (e.g., "Google Tax Bot"). This name can be simple, intuitive, and is not required to be unique.

  2. identifier (Agent Identifier): A globally unique, immutable logical address that follows a URN (Uniform Resource Name) convention. This acts as the permanent handle that developers use to reference the agent, ensuring stability even if underlying infrastructures change.

The URN Specification (identifier)

The identifier provides a verifiable and hierarchical naming structure. It MUST follow the format: urn:agent:<publisher-domain>:<namespace>:<agent-name>

  • This format establishes clear domain authority () and allows for organized namespaces (e.g., productivity, finance).
  • Example: urn:agent:salesforce.com:productivity:slide-generator

darrelmiller added a commit to darrelmiller/ai-card that referenced this pull request Apr 1, 2026
Rename Catalog Entry fields per AI Actor Naming Standard (PR Agent-Card#19):
- id -> identifier (globally unique logical address)
- name -> displayName (human-readable label)

Updated in: field definitions, CDDL schema, Mermaid diagram,
multi-version rules, trust identity binding, conformance levels,
all JSON examples, and OCI/MCP/Claude mapping tables.

HostInfo, Publisher, CollectionRef, and TrustSchema retain their
existing id/name fields (not agent naming fields).

Also updated publish-spec skill to reference renamed markdown file
(draft-ai-card.md -> ai-catalog.md).

Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>

| Field Name | Conceptual Name | Type | Description / Format |
| :---- | :---- | :---- | :---- |
| identifier | **Agent Identifier** | string | **Logical Name / Handle:** A globally unique, stable logical address. It MUST follow the URN convention (e.g., urn:agent:google:tax-bot). |

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doesn't this example violate the rule that "google" is not a verifiable domain?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Updated the example (publisher should be a verifier domain name)

**Format:** urn:agent:\<publisher-domain\>:\<namespace\>:\<agent-name\>

* **urn**: The fixed prefix required by IETF RFC 8141\.
* **agent**: The Namespace Identifier (NID). Other collections in the registry may use different NIDs (e.g., mcp, interactions).

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we are to create an "agent" NID then we should include a registration template in this document e.g. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8141#appendix-A
How do we define "agent"? What is or isn't an agent?
This puts a burden on each ai artifact to go register a new URN namespace.

@Tehsmash

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Can we close this now as superceeded by PR36?

@mindpower

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Closing this once since it's covered in #36

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants