Hi Claudio,

Absolutely not. An absurd amount of work for very little benefit. I have
never subscribed to a list with such a taxonomy proposal, and I am not
aware of any.

Taxonomies are profoundly limited - what if a post covers two, three, four
or more categories, or deals with topics that have not been registered, and
what about topics that are almost impossible to categorise for a dozen
reasons?

I have also pointed out that the list contributor guidelines do not specify
dictates against repetition or discussion of topics that have been raised
before. I don't see what the need is to make list members feel guilty that
they have not done deep archive searches before posting. I am having
difficulty even seeing why this topic should be discussed. Gosh, just wait
until the Eternal Glue Debate starts up again.


Andrew



On 6 March 2017 at 22:22, J. Claudio Di Veroli <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> Let me first ask the list whether they believe such a thing would be
> helpful.
>
>

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Note:  opinions  expressed on HPSCHD-L are those of the  individual con-
tributors and not necessarily  those of the list owners  nor of the Uni-
versity of Iowa.  For a brief  summary of list  commands, send mail to
[log in to unmask]  saying  HELP .
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::