These are a few of my thoughts on strict category tree classifications and why they seldom work in practice. My interest is from the DSP perspective.
If you review some of the issues related to the taxonomy, many of them boil down to naming and correctly assigning an asset to a specific category. And because it is a tree based structure, an asset can only exist within a single node of that hierarchy
My question is this : Is this realistic and can we always assign an asset to only a single node? and further more, is this future proof?
Is it a gas station, a convenience store, or both? - Is it also a grocery store because they sell groceries? - Who defines what exactly a grocery store is? Is there a worldwide agreed upon definition of a convenience store? Is the parking garage in a mall?? - Or is it in an office building??
When creating a strict single-node based structure, we are forced to define what a grocery store is and is not, and does this meet the definition of the sign owner, the grocery store owner, and the buyer and do they all agree on what that definition is?
I propose that the taxonomy is flattened to Parent, Child and there are lots of children, and a venue can be assigned to 1 or more nodes within that taxonomy. Think of it more like tagging. There is a reason why Amazon and Ebay allow you to assign listings to multiple categories, because strict 1:1 category structures never really accomplish what they try to do - classify the inventory - This breaks down when inventory is more than one class.
This solves the entire : "Is a gentlemans club a bar?" - Because you can assign it both. And buyers can then, when bidding, bid on all bars - OR, bid on all bars excluding gentlemans clubs - Or maybe just bid on all bars in Airports, etc.
The system would become much more flexible to the real-world if an asset, could be assigned to multiple nodes.