At the risk of butting into what seems to have become a semi-private debate - I'll offer this observation:
The term "oxblood" as it is used in the marble collecting hobby is used to refer to a color of glass sometimes used by certain manufacturers as a decorative accent. At the end of the day - any term we use should be reasonably clear and one should be able to hold a marble in the hand, point to it and say "THAT is oxblood". If we attempt to become highly scientific or to embrace all possible permutations into the the 1/100th of one percent of extreme examples - the term becomes less and less distinct, less universally understood and at some point - useless as a descriptive term. We judge by our eyes, our memory and our experience. The terms we use in the hobby (and it IS a hobby... lest we forget) need to be useful, helpful and meet our needs to describe a thing.
If we attempt to over-describe a term beyond practical limits - we run the clear risk of that term becoming useless - and a whole new family of terms being spawned to replace what used to be one.
If there is a true problem in describing oxblood in a way that the 95+ percentile of collectors can agree and use - I have not seen it.
Collectors cannot hold a marble in hand and guess/know the chemical composition of the glass. We judge based upon visual cues.
I had thought that the common definition of oxblood was fairly well acknowledged by most experienced collectors. If re-defining it or defining it better is somehow indicated - I am not aware of the cause that would move us in that direction.