I think this entire discussion is confusing data models, on the one hand, with set (inclusion) theory, on the other.<br><br>Also, the so-called &quot;use cases&quot; being mentioned are half analytical entities (solution domain) and half requirements (problem domain).
<br><br>First, the use cases need to be expressed in terms of problem domain requirements.<br>Then, it can be decided whether some kind of inclusion in sets (taxonomy) or data model (i.e., cck field plus views) can implement the needed functionality.
<br><br>saludos,<br><br>Victor Kane<br><a href="http://awebfactory.com.ar">http://awebfactory.com.ar</a><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/24/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Frederik &#39;Freso&#39; S. Olesen</b>
 &lt;<a href="mailto:freso.dk@gmail.com">freso.dk@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">2007/7/24, Robert Douglass &lt;
<a href="mailto:rob@robshouse.net">rob@robshouse.net</a>&gt;:<br>&gt;In my opinion, any time multiple parents are used it is a mistake in the<br>&gt;data model. [...]<br><br>If you have a data model for musical genres (which used multiple
<br>parents)...</blockquote><div><br><br></div></div><br>