Excellent, fun, make-me-smile discussion going on here!
Foot-in-the-mouthishly I suggested that voluminous and imprecise tagging would do the trick for any kind of object or issue, leaving precision to a delivery method of iffy-tags-interception.
That is met with strong arguments for "precision" at the creation side - "must have precise definitions of the tags, must have standards, must have master lists..."
Analytical, linear, logical, structured - that's the thing. Us analytical chaps being serious and such.
I'd like to give the opposite another go:
Why do debaters scream at each other? Different takes on terms and concepts and issues, different understanding of what was said.
Why do lawyers exist? To sort out the mess.
That's when we fall back to the standard solution: Focus on precision. We urge the parties to agree to common standards, we urge them to add more detailed paragraphs to the contracts.
This is what we (really) should be doing:
Accept imprecision as a given fact of life, focus on how to make the imprecision useful.
Go iffy and voluminous on the "creation" side, let iffy-tags-interception deliver the precise results and full knowledge on the "seeker" side. Avoid costly training. Avoid misspent time on standards discussions. Let understanding be an easier task.
Let free-tagging plus iffy-tags-interception free creativity, right brains and spontaneity.
Auto parts, ideas, posts, insects, articles, cranksets, people... same thing, conceptually and technically.