Skip to content

LlmWikis knowledge page

UAI-1 vs OpenAPI

Short answer

Summary judgment: use OpenAPI to describe HTTP API surfaces. Use UAI-1 to preserve exchange state, evidence, delivery semantics, trust, provenance, and integrity.

OpenAPI and UAI-1 can sit beside each other. OpenAPI tells a client how to call an HTTP API; UAI-1 explains the shape and evidence expectations of the AI exchange that may move through that API.

OpenAPI's boundary

OpenAPI is strongest at documenting endpoints, methods, request and response shapes, authentication requirements, examples, and SDK or client tooling around HTTP APIs.

UAI-1's boundary

UAI-1 is about the portable AI exchange record: what profile applies, how delivery works, which trust and provenance evidence travels with the message, and how the candidate exchange can be validated.

Criterion UAI-1 OpenAPI
Primary object AI exchange envelope and evidence HTTP API contract
Validation target Message profile, registry, provenance, integrity Request/response schema and endpoint behavior
Best fit Cross-boundary handoffs and review trails API documentation, SDK generation, endpoint testing
Failure question Is the exchange record valid, traceable, and reviewable? Was the endpoint called with an allowed request shape?
Use together? Yes. OpenAPI can describe the transport API while UAI-1 describes the portable exchange payload and evidence.

Why both may be needed

  1. Use OpenAPI for endpoints, authentication shape, request and response objects, and SDK generation.
  2. Use UAI-1 inside the payload or exchange record when provenance, delivery, trust, registry, and validation evidence need to survive beyond the API call.
  3. Store validator output with release or handoff evidence when the exchange becomes a public support claim.

Common confusion

A valid API request is not automatically a valid UAI-1 exchange. The endpoint can accept a payload while the exchange record still fails schema, registry, trust, provenance, or integrity checks.