On 6/6/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote:
Heh :) Input welcome! I think the distinction between
"taxonomy" and
"attribute" is probably a sliding scale. It comes down to what is
natural. Do we really think in terms of "nobel laureates"? I doubt it
Combining rigid rules with common sense is hard. I am tempted to quote your
line about inevitable disaster.
Personally I don't see the difference between taxonomies and
attributes, as described. But I suppose one (taxonomies?) could be
described as partitioning (an article can only be in one taxonomy
category) whereas attributes can be mixed. Under that definition
though, all taxonomies are attributes (but not vice-versa). I'm not
sure how close that definition is to reality though.
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". 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?
Steve