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