Hi Dusko,
i am reluctant call them dagger star autonomous categories, because it is a mouthful.
Perhaps it's a symptom of growing up in a country where "Kangiqsualujjuaq" is considered a perfectly acceptable name for a village, but I don't think that "dagger star- autonomous" is a mouthful. It's only one syllable longer than "sesquipedalian", and one less than "linearly distributive", neither of which I would hesitate to use in day-to-day conversation, should the occasion arise. It even scans nicely. Moreover, it communicates something (at least to me); for better or worse, both "dagger" and "star-autonomous" are both established terms, and I can see how they might be combined. Agglutination, though often mocked, is often effective.
so now, what should we call those "dagger star autonomous categories" if we don't want to type 30 characters each time we mention them?
One of the many curious features of the English language is that adjectives are never inflected; assuming you use TeX, why not take advantage of this fact in your source code? \def\dsa{dagger star-autonomous}
peter suggests DSA-categories.
If you're publishing in a print journal, or a conference proceedings with a hard page-limit, then that seems sensible (though I'd drop the hyphen). Otherwise, do us all a favour and stick to the long form: pixels are cheap, as editors of TAC are wont to say.
(maybe someone will abbreviate them to D-categories...)
What's the point of that? D-category could stand for (just plain old) dagger category, or differential category, or any number of other things. But maybe someone some day will \def\dsa{Pavlovic}. Cheers, Jeff. [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]