Although your specific request for terminology in the case of Lie algebras has now been answered, there is a very interesting broader question underlying your inquiry. Namely, how can we understand in a precise general way the idea that a given classification problem is complicated? How are we to compare the relative difficulty of two classification problems?

These questions form the central motivation for the emerging subject known as Borel equivalence relation theory (see Greg Hjorth's survey article^{1}). The main idea is that many of the most natural equivalence relations arising in many parts of mathematics turn out to be Borel relations on a standard Borel space. To give one example, the isomorphism problem on finitely generated groups, but of course, there are hundreds of other examples. A classification problem for an equivalence relation E is really the problem of finding a way to describe the E-equivalence classes, of finding an E-invariant function that distinguishes the classes.

Harvey Friedman defined that one equivalence relation E is *Borel-reducible* to another relation F if there is a Borel function f such that x E y if and only if f(x) F f(y). That is, the function f maps E classes to F classes in such a way that different E classes get mapped to different F classes. This provides a classification of the E classes by using the F classes. The concept of reducibility provides a precise, robust way to say that one relation F is at least as complex as another E. Two relations are Borel equivalent if they reduce to each other, and we are led to the hierarchy of equivalence relations under Borel reducibility. By placing an equivalence relation into this hierarchy, we come to understand how complex it is in comparison with other equivalence relations. In particular, we say that one equivalence relation E is strictly simpler than F, if E reduces to F but not conversely.

It sometimes happens that one has a classification problem E and is able to provide a classification by assigning to each structure a countable list of data, such that two structures are equivalent iff they have the same data. This amounts to a reduction of E to the equality relation =, for two structures are E equivalent iff their data is equal. Such relations that reduce to equality are called *smooth*, and lay near the bottom of the hierarchy of Borel equivalence relations. These are the simplest equivalence relations. Thus, one way of showing that a relation is comparatively simple, is to show that it is smooth, and to show it is comparatively hard, show that it is not smooth.

The subject of Borel equivalence relation theory, as now developed by A. Kechris, G. Hjorth, S. Thomas and many others, is focused on placing many of the natural classification problems of mathematics into this hierarchy. Some of the main early results are the following interesting dichotomies:

**Theorem.**(Silver dichotomy) Every Borel equivalence relation E either has only countably many equivalence classes or = reduces to E.

The relation E_{0} says that two binary sequences are equivalent iff they agree from some point onward. It is easy to see that = reduces to E_{0}, and an elementary argument shows that E_{0} does not reduce to =. Thus, E_{0} is strictly harder than equality. Moreover, it is a kind of next-step up in the hiearchy, in light of the following.

**Theorem.**(Glimm-Effros dichotomy) Every Borel equivalence relation E either reduces to = or E_{0} reduces to E.

The subject continues with many interesting results that gradually illuminate more and more of the hierarchy of Borel equivalence relations. For example, the Feldman-Moore theorem shows that every Borel equivalence relation E having every equivalence class countable is the orbit equivalence of a countable group of Borel bijections of the space. The relation E_{oo} is the orbit equivalence of the left-translation action of the free group F_{2} on its power set. This relation is complete for the countable Borel equivalence relations, in the sense that every countable Borel equivalence relation reduces to it. It's great stuff!

^{1}Hjorth, G. (2010). Borel Equivalence Relations. In: Foreman, M., Kanamori, A. (eds) Handbook of Set Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5764-9_5