On 6/6/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@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