Proposed hierarchy of fallacies

I am a developer of natural language processing software.  One of the word reference systems I use in my software is called WordNet, which groups together words into synonym sets, each of which represent a distinct concept.  In turn, each concept is related to others by semantic relations, e.g. "dark" is an antonym of "light", "beagle" is a hypernym or specific type of "dog", "dog" is a hyponym or general class of "beagle".

Would it aid people to learn and identify logical fallacies if the fallacies were organized in the same way?  A given fallacy may have more than one name (hasty generalization, false generalization, argument from small numbers, et al), be a form or variation of a more general fallacy (tue quoque as ad hominem), may be distinguished as formal or informal, or may relate to others on some basis (jumping to conclusions relates to non sequitur and post hoc ergo propter hoc).

It might also to help to identify proposed fallacies that are only tentatively included in the list.  I was thinking of building an Access database according to this idea and include all available on the fallacies on this site, as well as from other sources.