Talk:Q5283
Autodescription — diamond (Q5283)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “diamond” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- diamond (Q5283)
- carbon-silicon family (Q13292702)
- allotrope of carbon (Q622460)
- gemstone (Q83437)
- covalent network solid (Q632350)
- →(@) native element mineral (Q723127)
- diamond (Q5283)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
diamond⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Subclass of vs. instance of mineral
[edit]diamond (Q5283) is entered as subclass of native element mineral (Q723127), without source. To my mind, "diamond" refers to a singleton object, substance scattered across the Earth, just like gold or bronze; and in keeping with that, diamond is an instance of mineral and not a subclass of it. Similarly, bronze (Q34095) is an instance of material and not a subclass of it.
I was given a link to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Mineralogy/Properties/Archive/2018/06, in which an IP is making claims with no tracing to sources. That discussion leads me to notice that Centenary Diamond (Q2757039) is claimed to be an instance of diamond (Q5283), without source. To me, "diamond" is a not a class, but to Centenary Diamond (Q2757039), it is. Thus, Centenary Diamond (Q2757039) is claimed to be an instance of diamond (Q5283), a subclass of native element mineral (Q723127), a subclass of mineral (Q7946), a subclass of material (Q214609).
The talk page of mineral (Q7946) should probably explain how relations to "mineral" such as instance of and subclass of are dealt with and why, with examples and tracing to sources.
When investigating the above, I find almost no tracing to sources entered into Wikidata, which makes it hard to verify anything. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I see two entities for "diamond":
- 1) Substance, uncountable, a singleton object scattered across the Earth, an instance of mineral and of substance or material, like gold or bronze. This entity is not a class. It has no particular location (it is scattered) and it has no mass other than the total mass of all the occurrences, which is the total mass of all the atoms that belong to the substance. This entity is revealed in uses like "made from diamond".
- 2) A particular stone extended contiguously in space, having a location and mass, countable, made from the uncountable diamond. This entity is countable and a class, and has such instances as Florentine Diamond (Q609800) and Amsterdam Diamond (Q2045039), and further those listed in W:Category:Individual diamonds. This entity is a subclass of gemstone (Q83437).
These would be separated entities, in a properly designed ontology. The above matches M-W[1] sense 1a, where item 2) matches "also : a piece of this substance". Thus, M-W has 1) as the primary sense, with 2) as "also".
It is not clear whether the above duality extends to "mineral", that is, whether particular diamonds such as Florentine Diamond (Q609800) are instances of "mineral" in some sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- singleton object scattered across the Earth – this sound a little far-fetched to me. Can you trace this to a source? Diamonds have formed in different locations and at different times, independent of some "singleton object".
- Are you asking for a source where it explicitly says that diamond is a class? I don't know about such source, but it seems quite straightforward to consider it a type of material/substance and accordingly model it as a class (i.e. what you outline as "particular stone extended contiguously in space..." above).
- I'm not quite sure why you'd associate uses like "made from diamond" to this "singleton object", and not to diamond as material class. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:C51B:5F67:D0C0:57F3 12:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)