Repository navigation
docs(spec): RFC-0001 scopes & visibility, RFC-0002 ext for all kinds, RFC-0003 provenance typing - #12
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Opens the permissions layer for public design. Spec §2 now states plainly that the format does not yet express who may see a memory and points to Spec/rfcs/0001-scopes-and-visibility.md: an optional visibility object (private/group/shared/public + opaque principals), context defaults with per-record overrides, most-restrictive-wins on merge, receiver obligations, adapter mappings, compatibility (target format 1.2.0), conformance additions, alternatives and open questions. Discussion: #11 (comment period to 2026-10-05). Spec byte-identical in both repositories. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
MaximKotliar
previously approved these changes
Sep 14, 2026
…recise losslessness wording - Spec/rfcs/0002-ext-for-all-kinds.md — foreign-field carriage for every record kind (no wire change; generalized ext sidecar; two generic seam methods; L1 gains the all-kinds round-trip). Prerequisite for RFC-0001. Discussion: #13. - Spec/rfcs/0003-provenance-typing.md — claimClass (asserted/observed/inferred/merged/ imported), assertedBy (RFC-0001 principal syntax), mergedFrom; Evidence Pack rows carry them; PROV alignment. Discussion: #14. - Spec §10 scope note: ext is specified for episodes only today (other kinds' unknown fields are dropped by the reference readers) → RFC-0002. §2 provenance bullet → RFC-0003. - README: the losslessness claim now says exactly what holds — unknown kinds verbatim, unknown fields on episodes via ext — instead of 'foreign fields round-trip verbatim'. Spec byte-identical in both repositories. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Krivoblotsky
changed the title
okmnchk
approved these changes
Sep 14, 2026
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
3 participants
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.
Items 2–3 of the Tyan checklist — the two layers where the format still lacks shared meaning — proposed as RFCs per GOVERNANCE, plus one honesty fix. All three target format 1.2.0; comment period to 2026-10-05.
visibility {level, principals}on contexts (defaults) and records (overrides); most-restrictive-wins on merge; receivers preserve + honor default-denyextfor all kindsclaimClass(asserted/observed/inferred/merged/imported),assertedBy(principal),mergedFrom; Evidence Pack rows carry them; PROV-alignedWording fix (README + spec §10 scope note): the losslessness claim now says exactly what holds — unknown record kinds round-trip verbatim; unknown fields on episodes ride along as
ext— rather than "foreign fields round-trip verbatim". The spec §10 was already precise; the READMEs weren't.Docs-only. Spec/RFCs byte-identical in both repos; §2/§10 hunks don't overlap the format-1.1 PR (§3/§9). Pairs with the same-named PR in the sibling repo.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code