At 11:06 PM 9/1/2004 +0100, Timwi wrote:
No, what I
meant is allow any arbitrary categorization scheme - sets can,
after all, be inside other sets (or more than one set). A "related to"
scheme rather than "is a". See "Continued" below
So henceforth, writers are related to people?
The solution I've occasionally suggested is to set up some sort of system
whereby the meaning of categorization could be encoded right into the
category link and understood by the software. That would allow all the
different meanings of categorization to coexist. So for example the article
[[Io (moon)]] could be [[Category:is-a:moons]] and
[[Category:related-to:Earth]]. Or Category:Writers could be
[[Category:is-a:people]] and [[Category:related-to:writing]].
To transition over, all that needs be done is come up with some sort of
syntax that allows all the current category tags to continue working in
some default relationship type, and then just like how images have
gradually had their markup brought up to date by editors the categories
could get sorted out too.