It seems that in 2007 you merged Q17519152 … it’s unfortunate because you merged this with an item that is supposed to represent groups of physical objects. So now a dictionnary or a computer program are supposed to be groups of physical objects …
It’s a part of the mess I want to clean up on this topic
No "group of objects" was the item with whom I merged it and it had the description "multiple objects of any nature considered as a set". It's any nature and not just physical objects. You added the information that it's supposed to be a physical object in 2018 a year after the merge and created the mess. I switched it again from "concrete object" to "object".
Mmm I don’t remember why I did this but there was probably a reason. Maybe the simple interwiki who lists physical groups ?
The history of multiple merges is a little bit scary to me and makes hard to fully follow what happened over time.
But sorry, it seem to be my mistake.
Anyway, I don’t really like the habit of subclassifying « group » for anything that could be vaguely seen as a collection, it’s too abstract. A sofware is supposed to be a series hence a group (of executed instruction I guess) … a mathematical class/set is probably supposed to be a group either …
My feeling is that using this item in statements is more a source of confusion than order.
I don't have a strong opinion of where it should be used exactly. At the point where I made the merge we had two items with the same meaning and thus it made sense to merge them.Software currently doesn't subclass series and I don't they a strong reason why it should.
You’re right, it’s not software who subclasses it, it’s « computer program » (see the screenshot I did starting the work)
The link between the two is that a computer program may be regarder as a class of all the executions (computer process) that are generated by it. An execution of a program is a sequence of instruction, someone subclassed « routine » with it, which is a subclass of « series » which is a subclass of « group ».
(I made the mistake of taking « software » as a synonym of « computer program » which is wrong because the software of a computer is defined as « all of the intangible components of a computer », so datas are software as well)
I don't have strong opinions on the ontology of software at the moment. Feel free to work on bringing order into it.