[tcs-lc] Order of relationship types

[Nozomi Ytow]

As Rich and Gregor pointed out, some of relationship types are
ambiguous.  An practical difficulty is that a single relationship
record may represented in two or more ways, e.g. 
include/parent-child/synonym.

I suggest to re-order the enumeration to assist choice of relationship
type, and docuemnt it in the schema.  For example, if parent-child is
placed prior to inclusion and document specifies to choose relationshp
type appeared earliser, we can avoid this ambiguity as because
parent-child is a subset of inclusion.
I suspect the enumeration is orderd according to Nico's table but it is
unnecessary because it is explicitly stated for some of relationship
types.  We need to add to classificaiton information to description
of anamorph, teleomorph, ambiregnal, vernacular and has synonym.
"Hybrid Rlationship" category may be need to change to e.g. biological
relationship which also covers anamorph and teleomorph.

Cheers,
JMS