Talk:Q391414
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — architectural element (Q391414)
description: forms primarily as components of architecture
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “architectural element” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
For help about classification, see Wikidata:Classification.
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
architectural element⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Geographic feature[edit]
@Eledeuh: An architectural element is a component of a building. A building is a geographic element, because it can be identified by coordinates. And any of its components can also be identified by coordinates, because they do not move. Therefore, an architectural element is a geographic element. --FogueraC (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Making it a transitive property is quite a bit of a stretch, by that definition all potential physical objects are locations.
- architectural element defines a plethora of entities like column, roof or even lighting, which describe classes of elements used in architecture for a variety of purposes, I would argue that generalizing it as a subclass of geographical feature undermines that goal.
- Maybe @Swpb can chime-in given they also reverted your change earlier. Eledeuh (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well, not all potential physical objects have coordinates, only the ones that do not move. FogueraC (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Eledeuh is correct, and more generally, we only use instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) to identify the most specific parent classes possible, with more distant relationships being inferable, to avoid creating a lot of unnecessary and unhelpful statements. Yes, architectural element (Q391414) is (by inference) a part of a building (Q41176), and building (Q41176) is (by inference) a subclass of geographical feature (Q618123), and yes, the property of having a fixed location generally transfers from a physical object to its parts, but there is really no chance of anyone finding such a statement useful -- and that's why we're here. Swpb (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, we agree that architectural element (Q391414) is a subclass of geographical feature (Q618123), and that we should avoid redundant statements. I would agree that if architectural element (Q391414) was a subclass of a subclass of geographical feature (Q618123), then the statement would not be useful. But architectural element (Q391414) being a part of building (Q41176) breaks the chain of subclasses. In particular, if an architectural element (Q391414) used a property with a subject class constriant set to geographical feature (Q618123), it would raise a constraint violation. In that sense, the statement architectural element (Q391414)subclass of (P279)geographical feature (Q618123) is useful. FogueraC (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have readded the statement for now. FogueraC (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, we agree that architectural element (Q391414) is a subclass of geographical feature (Q618123), and that we should avoid redundant statements. I would agree that if architectural element (Q391414) was a subclass of a subclass of geographical feature (Q618123), then the statement would not be useful. But architectural element (Q391414) being a part of building (Q41176) breaks the chain of subclasses. In particular, if an architectural element (Q391414) used a property with a subject class constriant set to geographical feature (Q618123), it would raise a constraint violation. In that sense, the statement architectural element (Q391414)subclass of (P279)geographical feature (Q618123) is useful. FogueraC (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)