It would seem that RDF and the Creative Commons plugin would be very
related to what you're doing. I'm curious if you've given RDF
consideration in this and how that would factor into it?
Erik
On Jul 9, 2005, at 8:22 AM, Bernhard Fastenrath wrote:
I'm working on an ethics search protocol for internet search engines.
Could this be an interesting idea for nutch?
http://www.nongnu.org/esp/
An ethics-enabled search engine can act as a *complement* to the
well-known price search engines and turn ethical considerations
into an easily advertisable advantage. A search engine can store
imprint and ethics of organizations that publish them and allow
users to find organizations adhering to the desired ethics and also
to verify these ethics or the public feedback of organizations or
individuals that verify those ethics and an organization's
adherance to its ethics in detail.
Users of this system can demand ethics and support non-government
organization that try to uphold environmental, social or other
ethics. Gathering data from user profiles is expected from search
engines as users specify the ethics they are looking for and the
policy providers, certification agents and verification agents they
would like to see.
A search engine must return hits according to the quality of
matching ethics, if no other criteria was specified to supercede this.
Unsatisfied users can post tickets in a well-defined format to
policy providers or verification agents to remind policy
implementors to adhere to the ethics they have published. Policy
providers and verification agents can declare a published social
contract document as (partially) invalid or revoke (self-)
certifications. Users can also annotate policies or social
contracts and inform others about their private opinion about the
adherence or non-adherence of a policy implementor. Mediators
should be used to mediate in case of dispute as legal steps are
frowned upon (there is a base policy that disallows legal steps
where mediation would be appropriate) and can increase the number
of negative annotations.
Policies can extend *policy schemes* (inherting the structure of an
empty policy) or extend another policy that has not been declared
final. A final policy is not open to be extended. Extending a
policy means that paragraphs can be overridden or appended. The
implementation of a policy refers to the use of a policy in a
social contract.
In an analogy to the Java language one could refer to policy
schemes as interfaces and policies as classes but where Java
nomenclatur would be to implement a scheme (instead of extending
it), the term "implement" refers to what would be the instantiation
of a policy in Java, because a policy implementation is the act of
adding a policy to one's social contract. Such an "instance" of a
policy is parametrized by a single argument, which is the
implementation level. Further parametrization may be added in the
future, when the search facilities for policy parameters are
sufficiently standardized.
Policies should be structured to describe concisely *what* is
required by a policy, not *why* it is required or *how* it is to be
implemented. It should be considered good style to add links to
external web pages describing the *why* and *how* to every
paragraph that requires further explanations. Explanations should
preferrably come in different degrees of verbosity and
sophistication but aim to explain the connection to Kant's
Categorical Imperative <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Categorical_Imperative>.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the 'Do More With Dual!' webinar happening
July 14 at 8am PDT/11am EDT. We invite you to explore the latest in dual
core and dual graphics technology at this free one hour event hosted by HP,
AMD, and NVIDIA. To register visit http://www.hp.com/go/dualwebinar
_______________________________________________
Nutch-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nutch-developers
