Should 'of' be a preposition?

This is an excerpt from Thomas Bloor & Meriel Bloor's, "The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach"
(Hodder Headline Group, London, 1995)

p. 147
Prepositional phrases with 'of'

We mentioned that of is the most frequently occurring preposition in English. This information comes from Sinclair (1991), who calculates that of occurs more than twice as often as any other preposition. Sinclair's observations, which are based on a massive collection of English text, the Cobuild corpus, challenge some of the standard grammatical descriptions. As we have seen, prepositional phrases realize two main functions: Adjunct in a clause and Postmodifier/Qualifier in a Nominal group. Sinclair points out that it is generally assumed that the most typical (that is, frequent) function of prepositional phrases as a whole is the Adjunct, and for most prepositions (in, on, up, and so on) this is true. However, he notes that although OF does, like other prepositions, show up with this function (for example: 'convict these people of negligence') such occurrences are relatively rare, and the overwhelming majority of phrases of OF are Postmodifiers. He also notes that, unlike most prepositions, OF has no basic spatial sense (of direction or position); compare UP, ON, IN, OVER, UNDER. On grounds of distribution and typicality, Sinclair goes on to suggest that perhaps OF should not be classified as a preposition at all, but belongs to a class of its own. To date, this position has not gained widespread acceptance, but the argument is a powerful one.

Web 2.0 Engineering: Site Structure

Here I'm not referring to "engineering" in terms of building a code base, but the implementation and integration of 2.0 tools into basic web frameworks, like a blog or a (fomerly) static site. I'm going to do this simply by providing a record of my current central structure [attached graphic].


[Click on model for full size]

The model provided here does not include hardware and software that would also 'plug in' to this structure. In fact, it's the interassembly of many different layers of negotiation of LANGUAGE that is required in order to make several websites function. At every layer, whether it's using video editing software; typing simple HTML into a blog editor; remembering where each web component is located and what its function is - there's a deeper cerebral model that could be "mapped," although chances are that a neurological model would appear to be significantly 'messier' than a simple PowerPoint! As an example, the additional software/hardware components are located here: How to build Virtual Jonathan 2.0

If I took ALL of these components and linked them (for example, my YouTube channel is reliant upon use of video editing software, sound editing, a video camera, a computer, a cable), then I'd start to create a functional model for how this system actually operates. As a two dimensional model it's extremely limited and now I'm moving toward my central point:
* Language cannot be effectively mapped in two dimensional models such as linear grammatical structure.