![troika minim spinner troika minim spinner](https://i.pinimg.com/474x/e8/ab/44/e8ab449cdef4f4f5219c578549c1b530.jpg)
His big break came one year later, when editor Larry Hama hired him to write back-up stories for Marvel Comics' The Savage Sword of Conan. His earliest comics work was writing Evangeline first for Comico Comics in 1984 (then later for First Comics, who published the on-going series), on which he worked with his then-wife, the artist Judith Hunt. And I think things like documents and stop signs and monetary units are in an a broad category like "indicators", but maybe there should be a broad indicator category with one name and a more specific indicator category with a another name for machine parts that are indicators, like fog horns and pilot lights and metronomes.Charles "Chuck" Dixon is an American comic book writer, perhaps best-known for long runs on Batman titles in the 1990s. Food objects like pizzas are totally artefacts, but I'm not sure where to put those. And then, artefacts with informational functions like sensors and indicators seem like their own set of related artefact subtypes. I feel like weapons, ornaments, vehicles, and buildings are good clusters of artefacts, but maybe weapons and ornaments are in the previous tool/utensil/instrument category and vehicles are in the appliance/fixture/machine category, and uh, buildings are in the container categor, I guess. There are some other classes of artefacts by function rather than size+complexity that pertain to objects that just kind exist with solidity somewhere: barrier, container, support, fastener, cover. It seems normal to distinguish artefacts by a dimension that combines size and complexity, with littler simpler ones being called tools/utensils/instruments and larger, more complex ones ones being called appliances/fixtures/machines. At the moment it's still a train wreck, but it's a train wreck with more than 11,000 words, and I can feel good about that. In short, the Nominex is free, legible, actively developed, and on a trajectory of increasing ontological well-foundedness. I think some of the WordNet people are working with the Kyoto ontology project now, but Kyoto isn't the ontology that I want either. 3) I'm actively developing the Nominex, whereas WordNet is no longer in development and hasn't had a release in 9 years. Reference works should be legible and not bound up in databases. This is slightly more permissive than WordNet's BSD license, so maybe that's an attractive feature to you. Some other things that separate the Nominex from WordNet: 1) I am hereby releasing this work to the public domain. Secondarily, the Princeton WordNet has some problems as an ontology and I'd like to try do better. Why am I doing this? Honestly, mainly, I tried not doing it and that didn't work. I'm calling this version 0.25, and I think it's about 25% of the way toward being nice enough to share with the general public as a reference work. If I died tonight and I'd never shared this, that would be a shame. They're not well organized yet, but I've done enough that I think I should post something. # I've been sorting nouns in my off hours.