Open Personal Context specification
Download the standard
Read the complete draft offline or inspect the machine-readable contracts. The edition manifest lists every file with its SHA-256 checksum, and the source file names the repository revision the site publishes.
- Complete standard (Markdown)
- Complete text and contract bundle (JSON)
- REST OpenAPI contract
- MCP tool definitions
- Core vocabulary
- Conformance manifest
- Normative statement audit
- Test vectors, whose synthetic keys must never be trusted
- Edition manifest and checksums
- Source revision
- Earlier edition: document 0.2-draft (JSON)
Reading this document
Normative language follows RFC 2119: MUST, SHOULD and MAY carry their defined meanings. Levels are written L0 to L3. Machine values, keys, scopes and paths are set in monospace. Examples are informative unless stated otherwise.
- L0CategoriesCategories only, no values
- L1PreferencesPreferences and needs, no direct identifiers
- L2NamedFirst names and household relationships
- L3IdentifiedIdentifying details
Contents
Overview
Core
- Terminology
- A1Scope, status and layering
- A2Actors and trust model
- A3Identifiers, handles and resolution
- A4Data model
- A5Disclosure and the compiler
- A6Authorisation
- A7Agent surface
- A8Recipient API
- A9Read receipts and the log
- A10Revocation and purge
- A11Portability
- A14Contributions
- A15Security requirements
- A16Privacy and legal mapping
- A17Conformance and change process
- Design principles
- Typed record identifiers
- Scope grammar implementation
Reserved for 2.0
Bindings
Vocabulary
Conformance
Adoption records
- Standards adoption register
- AI agent memory interoperability
- Data Privacy Vocabulary
- Human Context Protocol
- IAB Tech Lab Data Deletion Request Framework
- ISO/IEC 24751
- ISO/IEC TS 27560
- JOSE signatures and canonical JSON
- JSON Schema, OpenAPI and Problem Details
- JWE and Argon2id
- Linked Web Storage and Solid
- Model Context Protocol
- OAuth 2.1 and its profiles
- PDPP Core
- Reserved credential and health standards
- SCITT
Worked example
History
Standards this builds on
Autonym does not define its own cryptography, authorisation or vocabularies where mature ones exist. Disclosure levels limit what is shared; signatures protect the resulting object and its bindings. The adoption register records, for each standard, the version pinned, what is taken and what is extended. This table is generated from it, and leaves out the record it marks reserved for a later version, from which edition 1.0-draft-1 takes nothing.
| Standard | How it is used | Where |
|---|---|---|
| W3C AI Agent Memory Interoperability CG and draft-saihm | Track and align shapes | A9, A10 notes |
| W3C Data Privacy Vocabulary (DPV) | Adopt terms | A4.2, A6.2 |
| Human Context Protocol | Map, do not adopt | A11 import mapping (planned) |
| IAB Tech Lab Data Deletion Request Framework | Adopt the request and acknowledgement shape | A10 |
| ISO/IEC 24751 (AccessForAll) | Adopt the vocabulary for the accessibility domain (catalogue entry only) | Vocabulary registry |
| ISO/IEC TS 27560 consent record information structure | Adopt the record structure (catalogue entry only) | A6.3, A9, A11 |
| JWS (RFC 7515), JCS (RFC 8785), JWK (RFC 7517), JWK thumbprints (RFC 7638), JWA (RFC 7518), I-JSON (RFC 7493), JWK exp (OpenID Federation 1.0) | Adopt | A5.3, A5.4, A9, A10, A11, A15.2 |
| JSON Schema 2020-12, OpenAPI 3.1, RFC 9457 Problem Details | Adopt | A8, B4, generated contracts |
| JWE (RFC 7516) and Argon2id (RFC 9106) | Adopt | A11.2 |
| W3C Linked Web Storage / Solid | Optional storage binding, 2.0 stream | Binding B2 (post 1.0) |
| Model Context Protocol | Adopt as the agent binding | A7, B3 |
| OAuth 2.1, PKCE, RFC 9396 rich authorisation requests, DPoP (RFC 9449) | Adopt as the authorisation primitives of A6, B1, B3 and B4 | A6, B1 |
| PDPP Core (PDP-Connect, LF Decentralized Trust) | Adopt as the normative 1.0 grant binding (B1); implement in the Autonym server | B1 |
| SCITT architecture and COSE Receipts | Evaluate; adopt if the receipt format can be expressed as a SCITT receipt | A9, this record decides |
Related work
Several active efforts cover the layers around Open Personal Context. This section describes each one and how Open Personal Context is intended to relate to it, so that the layering and the prior art are explicit. No compatibility with any of them is certified.
PDPP and PDP-Connect
The Personal Data Portability Protocol is an open specification for how a person authorises an application's ongoing access to their personal data. It is developed by PDP-Connect, a lab at LF Decentralized Trust started by the Vana Foundation. Its draft version 0.1.0 was published for public review, and the review period closed on 1 October 2026.
PDPP is the intended first authorisation binding for Open Personal Context: the base grant, purposes, expiry and revocation would come from PDPP, and Open Personal Context would add disclosure levels, approved renderings, receipts and purge acknowledgements.
Linked Web Storage and Solid
The W3C Linked Web Storage Working Group is the standards track that grew out of Solid. It is specifying a protocol that gives applications permissioned access to data held in separate storage, and published a Working Draft of the Linked Web Storage Protocol 1.0 on 21 September 2026.
Open Personal Context treats storage as a binding. An implementation may use Linked Web Storage or Solid, another interoperable store or its own database, as long as the same disclosure and accountability behaviour holds.
Linked Web Storage Protocol 1.0
Human Context Protocol
The Human Context Protocol is a working paper and prototype from the Stanford Digital Economy Lab with Consumer Reports. It treats a person's preferences as a portable, user-governed layer that AI clients can draw on.
Open Personal Context is intended to define a mapping to the Human Context Protocol's preference semantics rather than depend on it.
Human Context Protocol working paperHuman Context Protocol project page
W3C AI Agent Memory Interoperability Community Group
A W3C Community Group, launched in June 2026, working on a vendor-neutral format for how AI agents store, share and erase information, including tamper-evident audit trails and cryptographic erasure. Community Group reports are not W3C standards.
Open Personal Context tracks this work as prior art for receipts and erasure, and is intended to align with it where the two overlap.
Rich authorisation requests, DPoP and pairwise identifiers
RFC 9396, OAuth 2.0 Rich Authorization Requests, lets a client ask for fine-grained authorisation in a structured form. RFC 9449 defines DPoP, which binds OAuth tokens to a key the client holds so that a stolen token cannot simply be replayed. OpenID Connect pairwise subject identifiers give each client a different identifier for the same person, which limits correlation across recipients.
Open Personal Context is intended to use these for fine-grained requests, sender-constrained access and recipient-specific identifiers rather than define equivalents.
RFC 9396RFC 9449OpenID Connect Core 1.0, section 8
Transparency receipts and deletion requests
The IETF Supply Chain Integrity, Transparency, and Trust (SCITT) working group is specifying transparency services that register signed statements and return receipts that can be verified later. The IAB Tech Lab Data Deletion Request Framework passes deletion requests along the digital advertising supply chain, with signed requests and signed confirmations of receipt.
Open Personal Context is intended to evaluate SCITT-compatible receipts for its disclosure history rather than invent new cryptography, and to reuse established deletion-request concepts, and their structures where suitable, for purge requests and acknowledgements.
SCITT working groupData Deletion Request Framework
References to other standards and projects describe intended technical alignment only and do not imply endorsement or partnership.
How to cite
Open Personal Context specification, edition 1.0-draft-1. New Media Solutions Ltd, 2026. https://autonym.dev/spec