Talk:Q15619176
Autodescription — concrete object (Q15619176)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “concrete object” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
concrete object⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
second physical object?
[edit]@MovGP0: what was motivation during creation?
We had physical object (Q223557) and it is with fewer id. d1g (talk)
- The same, merge. --Fractaler (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Better to merge labels with concretization (Q18195733). d1g (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- What is concretization (Q18195733)? --Fractaler (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Opposite of abstraction (Q673661).
- I think this refers to many "more concrete" objects than "more abstract objects". d1g (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- So, we have description low-order concept? And if we have low/high-order concept, then what is "order of concept" (+The law of reverse relations between the content and the volume of the concept (Russian) (Q4184865))? --Fractaler (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- second is more concrete than first
- I don't see why we shouldn't merge this item d1g (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- So, we have description low-order concept? And if we have low/high-order concept, then what is "order of concept" (+The law of reverse relations between the content and the volume of the concept (Russian) (Q4184865))? --Fractaler (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- The original motivation was that I needed a way of distinguishing between real people and fictional characters in a story. So I backtracked the ontology and found out, that there was no way to define a concrete object in an high-level-sense. MovGP0 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Re-purposed
[edit]- physical substance (Q28732711)
- linguistic unit (Q4173967) - not limited to physical objects
Maybe this isn't useful and we should remove Q15619176. d1g (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
"objects with physical referent"
[edit]objects about physics, biology, geo-/astro-, medicine?
Maybe something else.
Math is difficult to place because "cone" can be made up abstraction or it can be analogy from ice cone d1g (talk) 08:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Another thing is when technology comes first but "physical referents" later.
And when all physical objects are defunct or destructed... Should we keep relations about "with physical referent"?
Doesn't sound good to me: to depend on last "P31" link as classification criterion. d1g (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Description
[edit]No description available now. --Fractaler (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- It was with physical referent
- I doubt this class is useful (see section above). d1g (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Item without description is object of "space/universe/scope/world of items without description" --Fractaler (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)