The labels for things have nothing to do with the state of nature, but rather with the way people work. The fact that we call Earth and Jupiter the same thing but consider the sun and Pluto to be different kinds of things is simply a choice that is meant to aid human understanding, not a statement about nature. There is no such thing as "chair" or "star" or "supermarket" in the laws of physics, those are just words we use to make sense of the world. We could say that the solar systems are made up of "gassies", and "rockies", and "icies", and "firies", and "clumpies" if we wanted instead of Gas Giants, Rocky Planets, Comets, Stars, and Asteroids, and it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference to the way nature actually works (if you get your descriptions of those kinds of things accurate enough, then you could still model the behavior of the solar system just as well as if you were using "planet" in your descriptions instead!), but, of course, it makes a difference to how people think about these things, which might help or hinder our analysis of them. (Note: as an example, if we were using "clumpies" for asteroids, then we might be arguing about whether Ceres is a "clumpy" or a "rocky", since it's much more regularly shaped than things like 216 Kleopatra... And speaking of classifying things, are dinosaurs lizards or birds? :p)
Of course, those labels aren't purely artificial. Once you define some measurement of similarity, you can identify clusters in a data set, if there are clusters to be found. Those clusters are reasonable things to lump together with labels.
I think that would be fantastic personally. The semantics of "planet" vs. "asteroid" is clearly far more motivational in terms of sending spacecraft to study them, plot stories around them, etc.
A planet is a place (that one might go), an asteroid is just a marginally interesting hunk of rock.
(it's really just a matter of marketing to be honest)
