mAsterdam: I am hitting the wall of my ignorance in trying to make a shape-based catalog of basically generic moves/properties. Generic in the sense that there is basically no context, so no defining direction, extension, shimari or kakari. Of course a property of a move can be that it occurs frequently in a specific context.
One question I had (and answered my way - but maybe there are other considerations) is ''Where should elementary stop?" "Elementary" here should mean one stone in relation to one other. So I think elementary moves already contains moves it shouldn't: Push, bump, etc..., but that brings me to the next question.
What to call the (class of) more complex moves?
They are not really complex, just not elementary. I thought about "compound", because there are more relevant relations (at least three) but did not like that because it does not respect the notion that there is just one field of tensions defining the moves.
Charles I think go encourages multiple approaches, and supports the idea that any one formal classification is too limited. "Take the cream from the top of the milk."
mAsterdam: Heh. I could have said that myself. However, I find that I am still far from the limit of this formal classification. I could still continue with Type 1, Type 2 etc, like Richard Hunter in his classification of semeai in Richard Bozulich's second book of go. Ugly, but if I can't find a more meaningful set of names I will do just that.