Hi — I'm working on OM World, a protocol for a decentralized intent economy. OriginTrail's DKG framing — decentralized knowledge infrastructure for multi-agent AI memory with publish/verify/discover semantics — overlaps directly with the Execution Proof primitive we're specifying, particularly the context_hash field for stateful memory tool calls.
1. Provenance + retrievability for verifier replay. Our Execution Proof has a context_hash field — a snapshot hash of the memory store at query time so a verifier can independently reproduce the retrieval. Does the DKG natively support "prove the knowledge graph was in state X at time T" — and if so, what's the snapshot mechanism (Merkle-rooted, attested by paranet, or external anchoring)?
2. Knowledge-asset granularity for agent retrieval. Memory retrievals are typically embedding-space queries returning ranked results. Does the DKG expose knowledge at the asset level (one query → ranked assets), at the triple level (subgraph-traversal answers), or both? The choice affects what a verifier needs to reproduce.
3. Multi-agent memory dispute resolution. When two agents disagree about what the DKG said at a particular moment — one claims it returned X, the other claims Y — what's the resolution path? Paranet attestation, time-locked snapshot fetch, third-party replay?
Happy to share the OM World Execution Proof spec — the DKG is one of the few production deployments of "verifiable shared memory for agents," and our spec's stateful-tool attestation rule would benefit from how you handle these in practice.
Hi — I'm working on OM World, a protocol for a decentralized intent economy. OriginTrail's DKG framing — decentralized knowledge infrastructure for multi-agent AI memory with publish/verify/discover semantics — overlaps directly with the Execution Proof primitive we're specifying, particularly the
context_hashfield for stateful memory tool calls.1. Provenance + retrievability for verifier replay. Our Execution Proof has a
context_hashfield — a snapshot hash of the memory store at query time so a verifier can independently reproduce the retrieval. Does the DKG natively support "prove the knowledge graph was in state X at time T" — and if so, what's the snapshot mechanism (Merkle-rooted, attested by paranet, or external anchoring)?2. Knowledge-asset granularity for agent retrieval. Memory retrievals are typically embedding-space queries returning ranked results. Does the DKG expose knowledge at the asset level (one query → ranked assets), at the triple level (subgraph-traversal answers), or both? The choice affects what a verifier needs to reproduce.
3. Multi-agent memory dispute resolution. When two agents disagree about what the DKG said at a particular moment — one claims it returned X, the other claims Y — what's the resolution path? Paranet attestation, time-locked snapshot fetch, third-party replay?
Happy to share the OM World Execution Proof spec — the DKG is one of the few production deployments of "verifiable shared memory for agents," and our spec's stateful-tool attestation rule would benefit from how you handle these in practice.