Talk:Q7184903
Autodescription — abstract entity (Q7184903)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “abstract entity” 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)
- ⟨
abstract entity⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
Union and disjoint queries
- Instances of abstract entity (Q7048977)
that are instances of two (or more) of the classes: [1] - Instances of abstract entity (Q7048977) that are instances of none of the classes abstract object (Q123139280) and property (Q937228) [2]
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
difference from abstraction (Q673661)?
[edit]d1g (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting question. I’d say that an abstraction refer to something it abstracts, whereas an abstract object may be purely abstract, say a mathematical set like the mandelbroot set, whereas Turing Machine is an abstraction for computers or the theory of relativity theory abstracts the laws of our universe and the motion of physical objects. author TomT0m / talk page 13:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- We need better descriptions then.
- And one item should be "abstractions over physical things/nature". d1g (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Any reason to have abstract entity (Q7184903) as subclass of object (Q488383) (and then entity (Q35120))
[edit]Any "abstract object" but never considered by anyone? How it is possible? Redundant with respect to object (Q488383) IMO d1g (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
problem to place "cone" here
[edit]or any geometrical form.
"object with no physical referents" - has the same problem as "objects with physical referent" d1g (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. Because objects need to be classified according to the space/universe/scope/world of their existence (physical, virtual, mental, mathematical, literary, etc.): cone is a mathematical object, ==> exists in a geometric (mathematical) space; physical object exists in the physical space --Fractaler (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
problem to place "information" here
[edit]- information (Q11028)
- can be captured as data (Q42848)
But they are no longer abstract, but written somewhere manifestation (Q286583)
Same about data set (Q1172284). d1g (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Abstract object subclass-of non-physical entity
[edit]In order for this to be true, non-physical entity would need to have some differentia that do not apply to abstract object. Currently, non-physical entity has no differentia at all as structural statements and has poor authority control, tracing to almost no external authorities. Things would be fixed if material entity (Q112276019) had structural differentia, but it does not have much of them either. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Abstract object subclass-of entity
[edit]The above statement seems accurate, meaningful and appropriate. Abstract object is among the highest genera (genuses) and these can be stated to be subclass of entity.
The identity of the concept of "Object" has ontologically not been established in Wikidata, as a single concept. The fact that WordNet does without Object and instead directly links abstract object to entity is significant. Someone ought to explain how Object differs from Entity; that has so far not been done. A deeper investigation is probably for the talk page of Object. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think the scope of object (Q488383) is best captured by the disjoint union statement on entity (Q35120): any entity that is not a property (Q937228) or process (Q3249551) is an object. I don't know how widespread that view is though. Swpb (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)