On 30/01/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: It works poorly if you expand all the way, and the higher up in the tree you start, the worse it works. In my experience using Duesentrieb's tool, it works quite well when you specify a low depth (depth=1,2,3). Often 1 is appropriate. As is obvious to anyone who works with categories on a regular basis, several types of relationships are encoded in category relations (3 examples: is type of, is component of, is related to). Simply using broad categories instead of narrow ones, as you suggest, will not stop unexpected results because not every category link is a "is type of" which is what is needed for it to work. some examples. [[category:Hominidae]] is type of [[category:primates]] (I think all TOL stuff would be like this) [[category:wheels]] is component of [[category:automobiles]] [[category:Culture, People, Geography, States, etc of Country X]] is related to [[Category:Country X]]. I don't think you are suggesting we should stop including links like these are you? insert blah blah Semantic MediaWiki blah blah... until there is something extra available to us to distinguish between itypeof and isrelatedto category links, and the rest of them, the tree will ALWAYS be "broken". That doesn't mean it's not useful in its current status though. Ways to improve it are always welcome. But I am not certain this will be one of them. cheers Brianna