Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Widen the definition of bf:arrangement and bf:Arrangement to Individual Objects #13

Open
sfolsom opened this issue Jun 25, 2018 · 4 comments
Labels
under review Work begins on issue; incl. questions, consultations, or BFC review.

Comments

@sfolsom
Copy link

sfolsom commented Jun 25, 2018

Justification: Current definitions reference only the organization and arrangement of a collection of objects. We recommend the extension of the terms to include individual objects, so that for example, during exhibitions the arrangement of a book (opened to plate 10) can be noted.

[This recommendation was made on behalf of the LD4P Art & Rare Materials BIBFRAME Ontology Extension (https://github.com/LD4P/arm).]

@raydAtLC raydAtLC self-assigned this Aug 8, 2018
@raydAtLC raydAtLC added relationships part of relationship project (v2.4) under review Work begins on issue; incl. questions, consultations, or BFC review. labels Aug 8, 2018
@kefo
Copy link
Member

kefo commented Jun 24, 2021

Need to revisit.

@kefo
Copy link
Member

kefo commented Dec 30, 2021

We made a pretty big change to this area of the vocabulary the last time around: #77

That's one of the reasons I annotated this as "need to revisit" back in June. Is the request here more or less the same except now targeting the collectionArrangement property and CollectionArrangement class, though both bake the issue you present into the name not just the definition (but maybe that is OK?)?

@jodiw01
Copy link
Contributor

jodiw01 commented Dec 6, 2023

@sfolsom -- using bf:collectionArrangement and bf:CollectionArrangement instead of bf:arrangment/Arrangement, does the definition still need to be refined?

@sfolsom
Copy link
Author

sfolsom commented Dec 15, 2023

I think the use case of an arrangement of a single resource still holds, which is a little different from how bf:collectionArrangement/bf:CollectionArrangement are named/defined. It would seem to me that bf:arrangment/Arrangement (as @kefo provides in #77) would encapsulate bf:collectionArrangement/bf:CollectionArrangement, but not the other way around.

That said, I've not been involved in ARM related discussions for some time. You may want to reach out to folks maintaining https://github.com/Art-and-Rare-Materials-BF-Ext/arm, to get their thoughts.

@jodiw01 jodiw01 removed the relationships part of relationship project (v2.4) label Feb 14, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
under review Work begins on issue; incl. questions, consultations, or BFC review.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants