###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels:['no_consensus', 'delete', 'keep', 'comment', 'merge', 'redirect'] : ###Input:  Q29102255: Q29102255 : no description : ( delete | history | links | entity usage | logs ) Q4346576 can be modeled as abstraction about real organism(s); "not a" classes aren't very applicable d1g ( talk ) 20:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : roughly same about Q29102814 : it is an agent (Q24229398) . d1g ( talk ) 21:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC) For example, fictional organism (Q30017383) is Q29102255 and is not digital organism (Q4346576) .-- Fractaler ( talk ) 14:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC) I cannot argue, but it is more natural to claim fictional organism (Q30017383) as some "abstraction" over "not-biological abstraction". "not-biological abstraction" is not used is speech or in writing frequently. Compare: "not-mathematical abstraction" "not-physical abstraction". We potentially can have many "not a" claims. Better to use "part of" property for this or similar. d1g ( talk ) 17:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : e.g. "not-mathematical pyramid Giza" - very weird to hear. I doubt that anyone would write this way in any language. d1g ( talk ) 18:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC) abstraction (Q673661) is "high-order concept"? About potentially can have many "not a" claims - for any set (Q36161) we have only 1) extensional definition (Q5421961) 2) intensional definition (Q1026899) . Here we have object definition: "biological/non-biological". non-biologial - for intensional definition (Q1026899) . We have set "organisms", and we have subsets. "part of" is very big for a smart search. How do you propose to find all organisms that are not biological? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 18:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "all organisms that are not biological?" Proper word is "abiotic" " abiotic organism " is almost never used, so I doubt we should accept it in Wikidata as classification. some item from abstract entity (Q7184903) And we don't have individual organisms at least right now. d1g ( talk ) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) I cannot argue, but it is more natural to claim fictional organism (Q30017383) as some "abstraction" over "not-biological abstraction". "not-biological abstraction" is not used is speech or in writing frequently. Compare: "not-mathematical abstraction" "not-physical abstraction". We potentially can have many "not a" claims. Better to use "part of" property for this or similar. d1g ( talk ) 17:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : e.g. "not-mathematical pyramid Giza" - very weird to hear. I doubt that anyone would write this way in any language. d1g ( talk ) 18:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC) abstraction (Q673661) is "high-order concept"? About potentially can have many "not a" claims - for any set (Q36161) we have only 1) extensional definition (Q5421961) 2) intensional definition (Q1026899) . Here we have object definition: "biological/non-biological". non-biologial - for intensional definition (Q1026899) . We have set "organisms", and we have subsets. "part of" is very big for a smart search. How do you propose to find all organisms that are not biological? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 18:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "all organisms that are not biological?" Proper word is "abiotic" " abiotic organism " is almost never used, so I doubt we should accept it in Wikidata as classification. some item from abstract entity (Q7184903) And we don't have individual organisms at least right now. d1g ( talk ) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) abstraction (Q673661) is "high-order concept"? About potentially can have many "not a" claims - for any set (Q36161) we have only 1) extensional definition (Q5421961) 2) intensional definition (Q1026899) . Here we have object definition: "biological/non-biological". non-biologial - for intensional definition (Q1026899) . We have set "organisms", and we have subsets. "part of" is very big for a smart search. How do you propose to find all organisms that are not biological? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 18:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "all organisms that are not biological?" Proper word is "abiotic" " abiotic organism " is almost never used, so I doubt we should accept it in Wikidata as classification. some item from abstract entity (Q7184903) And we don't have individual organisms at least right now. d1g ( talk ) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "all organisms that are not biological?" Proper word is "abiotic" " abiotic organism " is almost never used, so I doubt we should accept it in Wikidata as classification. some item from abstract entity (Q7184903) And we don't have individual organisms at least right now. d1g ( talk ) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. I cannot argue, but it is more natural to claim fictional organism (Q30017383) as some "abstraction" over "not-biological abstraction". "not-biological abstraction" is not used is speech or in writing frequently. Compare: "not-mathematical abstraction" "not-physical abstraction". We potentially can have many "not a" claims. Better to use "part of" property for this or similar. d1g ( talk ) 17:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : e.g. "not-mathematical pyramid Giza" - very weird to hear. I doubt that anyone would write this way in any language. d1g ( talk ) 18:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC) abstraction (Q673661) is "high-order concept"? About potentially can have many "not a" claims - for any set (Q36161) we have only 1) extensional definition (Q5421961) 2) intensional definition (Q1026899) . Here we have object definition: "biological/non-biological". non-biologial - for intensional definition (Q1026899) . We have set "organisms", and we have subsets. "part of" is very big for a smart search. How do you propose to find all organisms that are not biological? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 18:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "all organisms that are not biological?" Proper word is "abiotic" " abiotic organism " is almost never used, so I doubt we should accept it in Wikidata as classification. some item from abstract entity (Q7184903) And we don't have individual organisms at least right now. d1g ( talk ) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) abstraction (Q673661) is "high-order concept"? About potentially can have many "not a" claims - for any set (Q36161) we have only 1) extensional definition (Q5421961) 2) intensional definition (Q1026899) . Here we have object definition: "biological/non-biological". non-biologial - for intensional definition (Q1026899) . We have set "organisms", and we have subsets. "part of" is very big for a smart search. How do you propose to find all organisms that are not biological? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 18:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "all organisms that are not biological?" Proper word is "abiotic" " abiotic organism " is almost never used, so I doubt we should accept it in Wikidata as classification. some item from abstract entity (Q7184903) And we don't have individual organisms at least right now. d1g ( talk ) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "all organisms that are not biological?" Proper word is "abiotic" " abiotic organism " is almost never used, so I doubt we should accept it in Wikidata as classification. some item from abstract entity (Q7184903) And we don't have individual organisms at least right now. d1g ( talk ) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. abstraction (Q673661) is "high-order concept"? About potentially can have many "not a" claims - for any set (Q36161) we have only 1) extensional definition (Q5421961) 2) intensional definition (Q1026899) . Here we have object definition: "biological/non-biological". non-biologial - for intensional definition (Q1026899) . We have set "organisms", and we have subsets. "part of" is very big for a smart search. How do you propose to find all organisms that are not biological? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 18:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "all organisms that are not biological?" Proper word is "abiotic" " abiotic organism " is almost never used, so I doubt we should accept it in Wikidata as classification. some item from abstract entity (Q7184903) And we don't have individual organisms at least right now. d1g ( talk ) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "all organisms that are not biological?" Proper word is "abiotic" " abiotic organism " is almost never used, so I doubt we should accept it in Wikidata as classification. some item from abstract entity (Q7184903) And we don't have individual organisms at least right now. d1g ( talk ) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. "all organisms that are not biological?" Proper word is "abiotic" " abiotic organism " is almost never used, so I doubt we should accept it in Wikidata as classification. some item from abstract entity (Q7184903) And we don't have individual organisms at least right now. d1g ( talk ) 20:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. wikt:en:abiotic : of inorganic matter . fictional organism (Q30017383) - inorganic matter (Q38082850) ? What is individual organisms ? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Q29102255 make no sense as class because item for programs was always there and it is unintuitive. d1g ( talk ) 23:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. Where would we state ⟨ subject ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ digital organism (Q4346576) ⟩ ? Only with programs. @ Fractaler : any difference between Q29102255 and fictional organism (Q1972868) ? d1g ( talk ) 23:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC) fictional organism (Q1972868) : class of mystical, fictional and suspected lifeforms, excludes real lifeforms -> set digital organism (Q4346576) is not a subset of fictional organism (Q1972868) . Set digital organism (Q4346576) is subset of the set Q29102255 . -- Fractaler ( talk ) 06:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : any example of digital organism (Q4346576) but not a simulation software (Q11121294) ? d1g ( talk ) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) There is 1) Q29956845 and its Q29956950 . Running simulation software (Q11121294) ( Q29956845 ) makes Q29875489 ( Q29956950 ) - digital organism (Q4346576) . So, while simulation software (Q11121294) is off (not launched), no digital organism (Q4346576) . And only when the simulation software (Q11121294) is on (launched), in space of simulation software (Q11121294) (exactly - in RAM - creation, initialization etc. in some object-oriented programming (Q79872) , for example, by = new (Q1954125) in C++) digital organism (Q4346576) appears. -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : so why would we need Q29102255 in above description? d1g ( talk ) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC) For using (search, etc.) by bots (because Wikidata is machine-readable data (Q6723621) ). What is now a simple query to search for all non-biological organisms? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : any example of digital organism (Q4346576) but not a simulation software (Q11121294) ? d1g ( talk ) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) There is 1) Q29956845 and its Q29956950 . Running simulation software (Q11121294) ( Q29956845 ) makes Q29875489 ( Q29956950 ) - digital organism (Q4346576) . So, while simulation software (Q11121294) is off (not launched), no digital organism (Q4346576) . And only when the simulation software (Q11121294) is on (launched), in space of simulation software (Q11121294) (exactly - in RAM - creation, initialization etc. in some object-oriented programming (Q79872) , for example, by = new (Q1954125) in C++) digital organism (Q4346576) appears. -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : so why would we need Q29102255 in above description? d1g ( talk ) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC) For using (search, etc.) by bots (because Wikidata is machine-readable data (Q6723621) ). What is now a simple query to search for all non-biological organisms? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC) There is 1) Q29956845 and its Q29956950 . Running simulation software (Q11121294) ( Q29956845 ) makes Q29875489 ( Q29956950 ) - digital organism (Q4346576) . So, while simulation software (Q11121294) is off (not launched), no digital organism (Q4346576) . And only when the simulation software (Q11121294) is on (launched), in space of simulation software (Q11121294) (exactly - in RAM - creation, initialization etc. in some object-oriented programming (Q79872) , for example, by = new (Q1954125) in C++) digital organism (Q4346576) appears. -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : so why would we need Q29102255 in above description? d1g ( talk ) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC) For using (search, etc.) by bots (because Wikidata is machine-readable data (Q6723621) ). What is now a simple query to search for all non-biological organisms? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : so why would we need Q29102255 in above description? d1g ( talk ) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC) For using (search, etc.) by bots (because Wikidata is machine-readable data (Q6723621) ). What is now a simple query to search for all non-biological organisms? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : any example of digital organism (Q4346576) but not a simulation software (Q11121294) ? d1g ( talk ) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC) There is 1) Q29956845 and its Q29956950 . Running simulation software (Q11121294) ( Q29956845 ) makes Q29875489 ( Q29956950 ) - digital organism (Q4346576) . So, while simulation software (Q11121294) is off (not launched), no digital organism (Q4346576) . And only when the simulation software (Q11121294) is on (launched), in space of simulation software (Q11121294) (exactly - in RAM - creation, initialization etc. in some object-oriented programming (Q79872) , for example, by = new (Q1954125) in C++) digital organism (Q4346576) appears. -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : so why would we need Q29102255 in above description? d1g ( talk ) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC) For using (search, etc.) by bots (because Wikidata is machine-readable data (Q6723621) ). What is now a simple query to search for all non-biological organisms? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC) There is 1) Q29956845 and its Q29956950 . Running simulation software (Q11121294) ( Q29956845 ) makes Q29875489 ( Q29956950 ) - digital organism (Q4346576) . So, while simulation software (Q11121294) is off (not launched), no digital organism (Q4346576) . And only when the simulation software (Q11121294) is on (launched), in space of simulation software (Q11121294) (exactly - in RAM - creation, initialization etc. in some object-oriented programming (Q79872) , for example, by = new (Q1954125) in C++) digital organism (Q4346576) appears. -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : so why would we need Q29102255 in above description? d1g ( talk ) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC) For using (search, etc.) by bots (because Wikidata is machine-readable data (Q6723621) ). What is now a simple query to search for all non-biological organisms? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : so why would we need Q29102255 in above description? d1g ( talk ) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC) For using (search, etc.) by bots (because Wikidata is machine-readable data (Q6723621) ). What is now a simple query to search for all non-biological organisms? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC) There is 1) Q29956845 and its Q29956950 . Running simulation software (Q11121294) ( Q29956845 ) makes Q29875489 ( Q29956950 ) - digital organism (Q4346576) . So, while simulation software (Q11121294) is off (not launched), no digital organism (Q4346576) . And only when the simulation software (Q11121294) is on (launched), in space of simulation software (Q11121294) (exactly - in RAM - creation, initialization etc. in some object-oriented programming (Q79872) , for example, by = new (Q1954125) in C++) digital organism (Q4346576) appears. -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : so why would we need Q29102255 in above description? d1g ( talk ) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC) For using (search, etc.) by bots (because Wikidata is machine-readable data (Q6723621) ). What is now a simple query to search for all non-biological organisms? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : so why would we need Q29102255 in above description? d1g ( talk ) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC) For using (search, etc.) by bots (because Wikidata is machine-readable data (Q6723621) ). What is now a simple query to search for all non-biological organisms? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : so why would we need Q29102255 in above description? d1g ( talk ) 09:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC) For using (search, etc.) by bots (because Wikidata is machine-readable data (Q6723621) ). What is now a simple query to search for all non-biological organisms? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 09:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC) @ Fractaler : in order to use it, it should be understood.
I doubt that claims like add any value if other users reject them over widely used abstractions "non-biological organism" - where it was used before? d1g ( talk ) 10:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC) opposite (Q1498321) is one of the old and well-known methods of describing the world. Many people use it (see, for example, TRIZ (Q631910) ). -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC) Apart from the points mentioned by d1g: I really oppose the statements ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102255 ⟩ and ⟨ fictional organism (Q1972868) ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102255 ⟩ . These statements suggest that fictional organism (Q30017383) / fictional organism (Q1972868) are classes of organisms that consist of some kind of non-biological matter/are organised in some kind of non-biological way (or whatever). It's not some kind of matter or way of organisation that characterises fictional organism (Q30017383) / fictional organism (Q1972868) and sets them apart from organism (Q7239) . They're characterised by their mode of existence ( fictional organism (Q30017383) - they don't exist)/ epistemic mode ( fictional organism (Q1972868) - they're not known to exist (including being known to not exist)). If instances of fictional organism (Q1972868) exist, they're organism (Q7239) . If they don't exist, they're no organisms at all. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 10:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What is fictional organism (Q30017383) ? ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ . What is fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ? fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) is: "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world". So, set fictional organism (Q30017383) and set organism (Q7239) are subsets of the set "analogous class". So, what is "analogous class"? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC) fictional organism (Q30017383) is currently a subset of creative work (Q17537576) . So the instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are considered to be creative works. ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ means that fictional organism (Q30017383) is an analog of organism (Q7239) with "analog" having quite a vague meaning. You can think of it as meaning "instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are conceived as organism (Q7239) ". I'm sorry, but I really don't see how the sentence "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world" implies that there is an "analogous class" that comprises both fictional organism (Q30017383) and organism (Q7239) and how this has anything to do with the question if there is some use for Q29102255 - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Apart from the points mentioned by d1g: I really oppose the statements ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102255 ⟩ and ⟨ fictional organism (Q1972868) ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102255 ⟩ . These statements suggest that fictional organism (Q30017383) / fictional organism (Q1972868) are classes of organisms that consist of some kind of non-biological matter/are organised in some kind of non-biological way (or whatever). It's not some kind of matter or way of organisation that characterises fictional organism (Q30017383) / fictional organism (Q1972868) and sets them apart from organism (Q7239) . They're characterised by their mode of existence ( fictional organism (Q30017383) - they don't exist)/ epistemic mode ( fictional organism (Q1972868) - they're not known to exist (including being known to not exist)). If instances of fictional organism (Q1972868) exist, they're organism (Q7239) . If they don't exist, they're no organisms at all. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 10:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What is fictional organism (Q30017383) ? ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ . What is fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ? fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) is: "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world". So, set fictional organism (Q30017383) and set organism (Q7239) are subsets of the set "analogous class". So, what is "analogous class"? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC) fictional organism (Q30017383) is currently a subset of creative work (Q17537576) . So the instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are considered to be creative works. ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ means that fictional organism (Q30017383) is an analog of organism (Q7239) with "analog" having quite a vague meaning. You can think of it as meaning "instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are conceived as organism (Q7239) ". I'm sorry, but I really don't see how the sentence "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world" implies that there is an "analogous class" that comprises both fictional organism (Q30017383) and organism (Q7239) and how this has anything to do with the question if there is some use for Q29102255 - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) What is fictional organism (Q30017383) ? ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ . What is fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ? fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) is: "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world". So, set fictional organism (Q30017383) and set organism (Q7239) are subsets of the set "analogous class". So, what is "analogous class"? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC) fictional organism (Q30017383) is currently a subset of creative work (Q17537576) . So the instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are considered to be creative works. ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ means that fictional organism (Q30017383) is an analog of organism (Q7239) with "analog" having quite a vague meaning. You can think of it as meaning "instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are conceived as organism (Q7239) ". I'm sorry, but I really don't see how the sentence "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world" implies that there is an "analogous class" that comprises both fictional organism (Q30017383) and organism (Q7239) and how this has anything to do with the question if there is some use for Q29102255 - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) fictional organism (Q30017383) is currently a subset of creative work (Q17537576) . So the instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are considered to be creative works. ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ means that fictional organism (Q30017383) is an analog of organism (Q7239) with "analog" having quite a vague meaning. You can think of it as meaning "instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are conceived as organism (Q7239) ". I'm sorry, but I really don't see how the sentence "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world" implies that there is an "analogous class" that comprises both fictional organism (Q30017383) and organism (Q7239) and how this has anything to do with the question if there is some use for Q29102255 - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Apart from the points mentioned by d1g: I really oppose the statements ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102255 ⟩ and ⟨ fictional organism (Q1972868) ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Q29102255 ⟩ . These statements suggest that fictional organism (Q30017383) / fictional organism (Q1972868) are classes of organisms that consist of some kind of non-biological matter/are organised in some kind of non-biological way (or whatever). It's not some kind of matter or way of organisation that characterises fictional organism (Q30017383) / fictional organism (Q1972868) and sets them apart from organism (Q7239) . They're characterised by their mode of existence ( fictional organism (Q30017383) - they don't exist)/ epistemic mode ( fictional organism (Q1972868) - they're not known to exist (including being known to not exist)). If instances of fictional organism (Q1972868) exist, they're organism (Q7239) . If they don't exist, they're no organisms at all. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 10:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What is fictional organism (Q30017383) ? ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ . What is fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ? fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) is: "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world". So, set fictional organism (Q30017383) and set organism (Q7239) are subsets of the set "analogous class". So, what is "analogous class"? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC) fictional organism (Q30017383) is currently a subset of creative work (Q17537576) . So the instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are considered to be creative works. ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ means that fictional organism (Q30017383) is an analog of organism (Q7239) with "analog" having quite a vague meaning. You can think of it as meaning "instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are conceived as organism (Q7239) ". I'm sorry, but I really don't see how the sentence "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world" implies that there is an "analogous class" that comprises both fictional organism (Q30017383) and organism (Q7239) and how this has anything to do with the question if there is some use for Q29102255 - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) What is fictional organism (Q30017383) ? ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ . What is fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ? fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) is: "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world". So, set fictional organism (Q30017383) and set organism (Q7239) are subsets of the set "analogous class". So, what is "analogous class"? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC) fictional organism (Q30017383) is currently a subset of creative work (Q17537576) . So the instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are considered to be creative works. ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ means that fictional organism (Q30017383) is an analog of organism (Q7239) with "analog" having quite a vague meaning. You can think of it as meaning "instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are conceived as organism (Q7239) ". I'm sorry, but I really don't see how the sentence "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world" implies that there is an "analogous class" that comprises both fictional organism (Q30017383) and organism (Q7239) and how this has anything to do with the question if there is some use for Q29102255 - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) fictional organism (Q30017383) is currently a subset of creative work (Q17537576) . So the instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are considered to be creative works. ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ means that fictional organism (Q30017383) is an analog of organism (Q7239) with "analog" having quite a vague meaning. You can think of it as meaning "instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are conceived as organism (Q7239) ". I'm sorry, but I really don't see how the sentence "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world" implies that there is an "analogous class" that comprises both fictional organism (Q30017383) and organism (Q7239) and how this has anything to do with the question if there is some use for Q29102255 - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) What is fictional organism (Q30017383) ? ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ . What is fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ? fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) is: "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world". So, set fictional organism (Q30017383) and set organism (Q7239) are subsets of the set "analogous class". So, what is "analogous class"? -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC) fictional organism (Q30017383) is currently a subset of creative work (Q17537576) . So the instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are considered to be creative works. ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ means that fictional organism (Q30017383) is an analog of organism (Q7239) with "analog" having quite a vague meaning. You can think of it as meaning "instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are conceived as organism (Q7239) ". I'm sorry, but I really don't see how the sentence "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world" implies that there is an "analogous class" that comprises both fictional organism (Q30017383) and organism (Q7239) and how this has anything to do with the question if there is some use for Q29102255 - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) fictional organism (Q30017383) is currently a subset of creative work (Q17537576) . So the instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are considered to be creative works. ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ means that fictional organism (Q30017383) is an analog of organism (Q7239) with "analog" having quite a vague meaning. You can think of it as meaning "instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are conceived as organism (Q7239) ". I'm sorry, but I really don't see how the sentence "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world" implies that there is an "analogous class" that comprises both fictional organism (Q30017383) and organism (Q7239) and how this has anything to do with the question if there is some use for Q29102255 - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) fictional organism (Q30017383) is currently a subset of creative work (Q17537576) . So the instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are considered to be creative works. ⟨ fictional organism (Q30017383) ⟩ fictional or mythical analog of (P1074) ⟨ organism (Q7239) ⟩ means that fictional organism (Q30017383) is an analog of organism (Q7239) with "analog" having quite a vague meaning. You can think of it as meaning "instances of fictional organism (Q30017383) are conceived as organism (Q7239) ". I'm sorry, but I really don't see how the sentence "used to link a class of items appearing in a creative work with the analogous class of objects in the real world" implies that there is an "analogous class" that comprises both fictional organism (Q30017383) and organism (Q7239) and how this has anything to do with the question if there is some use for Q29102255 - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 15:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) What criteria do you use in your classification when referring to the organism, humanoid, robot, etc. object? "Analogy"? An analogy means that there is the set that includes both (real and unreal object) subsets. Why do you say: 1) a "fictional organism", 2) a "mythical humanoid" 3) a "fictional robot", etc., and not 1) "fictional creation" 2) "mythical creation, 3) "unreal device", etc.? So there is an abstract class that has the attributes of both classes ("fictional organism" + "real organism" -> organism, "mythical humanoid" + "non-mythical humanoid" -> humanoid, "fictional robot" + "real robot" -> robot ) -- Fractaler ( talk ) 15:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC) I see - this is one interpretation of what it means to be analogue. But why do you need to model this interpretation via subclass-of-relationships? This doesn't add anything of value in addition to the statement that a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item. You also don't need a siblingship class for each group of people who are siblings. The statement that x ist the sibling of y suffices. - Valentina.Anitnelav ( talk ) 09:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC) We have two "interpretation of what it means to be analogue": 1) for a bot ( Q36987817 , for queries), and 2) for the person/human ( Q36987233 ). tree (Q272735) -interpretation ("Subset-Set-Superset") is Q36987817 . interpretation like "a certain item is the fictional analogue of another certain item" is Q36987233 (it has a previous stage in the evolution of the representation of knowledge - Wikipedia). "The statement that x is the sibling of y suffices" (set A is subset of the set "all A") - it is also Q36987817 -- Fractaler ( talk ) 12:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)