On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 14:07:23 +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
I'm inclined to think that in practice they pretty
much work the same
way. However, semantically, I would really like to distinguish
concrete, significant, basic categories like "Ships" from much less
salient, significant facts like "Born in 1793" or "Winners of Golden
Raspberries".
Significant? Salient? You don't want to go there.
I'd argue the most significant thing about the Titanic is "major disaster"
("Shipwrecks in the Atlantic Ocean", actually). It's not significant or
salient for being a ship, but for taking 1500 people down.
And what is more salient about Halle Berry, being a women (or actress, for
all I care) _or_ having won a "Worst Actress Razzie"? Well?
I'm afraid your "I know it when it see it" approach to identifying
taxonomic categories is hopelessly POV.
However, I suspect that even the most basic taxonomies
will have bastard
children with two parents: Something could be both a sport and a
television show. Someone could be both a musician and a scientist. But
maybe the "one taxonomy per article except in strange cases" goal is
reasonable?
Hardly. For starters, many people have held several jobs in their life.
Halle Berry is also a model. Albert Einstein was also a Patent Clerk. Duke
Ellington was a composer, bandleader, and pianist. Etc. pp.
Roger