Unfortunately by doing so your taxonomy no longer functions as a taxonomy.
Of course it does, there is no specific set rules about how defined a taxonomy must be just consensus around a set of terms. In my opinion you're making things unnecessarily complex.
FYI the process of generating the last stack involved classifying everything cloud-related
I'm not sure what you're talking about here?
The observation that an application can feed another
A taxonomy to identify discrete layers of the computing stack says nothing about how those layers can interact with each other. You don't need to make things this complex.
Trying to represent that an application can also serve as part of a platform results in both junk and confusion.
This is only true if you're trying to create a description which enforces how something is used. An application can happily be built upon a platform which also consumes feeds from multiple applications that themselves are built upon .... this is fine. A taxonomy doesn't have to define order of use or operation. Keep it simple.
I'm hoping that by covering everything concisely as we have here the result won't be rejected as "too simplistic".
Simplicity is key. You've gone to far and created a rod for your own back.
If however it makes sense to boil it down further for your particular application then go right ahead.
I now don't know what you're talking about. -- Simon Wardley Software Services Manager, Canonical Ltd. TEL: +44 (0)207 630 2451 MOB : +44 (0)7972 911 449 TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/swardley/