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.