taxonomy.works
Polski

REF.05 own project · wwwtaxonomy.com · 2026

A taxonomy of web projects based on outcome, not technology

26 mutually exclusive types of web project, decided by a four-gate cascade and 88 yes/no boundary rules — tested against 78 real project folders.

Tooling
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • Next.js
  • Cloudflare Workers

Explore live system ↗

Plate REF.05 — Classification architecture4-gate functional outcome cascade
78 project folders
  1. G1–G2
    Network · Persistent workspace88 yes/no boundary rules
  2. G3–G4
    Operator · Session runtimeFallback: Publishing
  3. 5 / 26
    5 families · 26 leaf types10 single · 21 composite · 40 out
Families / leaf types
5 / 26
Boundary rules
88
Folders classified
78
Composite profiles among projects
21 / 31

  1. Problem

    Website typologies usually mix axes: sometimes by technology, sometimes by industry, sometimes by number of screens. Two earlier versions of this taxonomy, built independently, gave different answers for the same projects.

  2. Approach

    One axis: the functional outcome the user receives. An ordered cascade of four gates — network, persistent workspace, operator fulfilment, session runtime — with publishing as the fallback, leads to five families and 26 leaf types. Every boundary is settled by a rule with a yes/no question. Version 3.0 merged the two earlier taxonomies after an independent audit of where they disagreed.

  3. Outcome

    The taxonomy was applied to 78 project folders: 31 are working web projects, 10 with a single-type profile and 21 composite; 40 fell outside its scope and were flagged rather than forced in. The data is published as open CSV and JSON with PL/EN definitions.

The high share of composite profiles is not a classification failure. A site that is at once a catalogue, an analyser and a private ledger really does deliver three separately accepted outcomes — and a taxonomy that forces a single type hides that.

The main division follows a lexicographic order of four contracts (N > P > O > R: network → persistent workspace → operator fulfilment → session runtime → publishing as fallback). Cross-cutting features — payments, login, moderation, search or an AI model — never mint separate project types: they are recorded as binary modifiers or secondary contracts unless they deliver an independently accepted domain outcome.

What this engagement does not cover

Classifying the 78 folders was done by the taxonomy’s author, not as an independent reproducibility test.