Talk:Q47461344
Autodescription — written work (Q47461344)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “written work” 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)
- ⟨
written work⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Tamil label
[edit]Tamil Label: எழுத்துப் படைப்பு --UTSC Library DSU (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Concept of 'written work'
[edit]I feel it is not clear enough whether the concept behind written work (Q47461344) refers to
- (1) an abstract idea of a work, e.g., Hansel and Gretel (Q11829), Bible (Q1845),
or
- (2) a concrete piece of text (physically, incl. digital), e.g., concrete editions or manuscripts like Hansel and Grethel (Q60633483), Church Bible of 1917 (Q10397145)
The general application of the concepts speaks in favour of (1), see, e.g., the literary works Hansel and Gretel (Q11829), Bible (Q1845), but not version, edition or translation (Q3331189) like Hansel and Grethel (Q60633483), Church Bible of 1917 (Q10397145).
It is also tagged to be a subclass of and only of intellectual work (Q15621286).
However, the definition "any work expressed in writing, such as inscriptions, manuscripts, documents or maps", and the fact that is is said to be the same as (P460) handwritten record (Q20058025) suggest that it is physical. In this case it would compete with the concept of text (Q234460).
I understand that it is concept (1) which is meant here. So I wonder whether
- the statement "said to be the same as (P460) handwritten record (Q20058025)" should be removed.
- the definition ("any textual work typically instantiated in writing") and probably even the concepts name ("textual work"?) should be changed.