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

[sfolsom]

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).]

[kefo]

Need to revisit.

[kefo]

We made a pretty big change to this area of the vocabulary the last time around: https://github.com/lcnetdev/bibframe-ontology/issues/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]

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

[sfolsom]

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 https://github.com/lcnetdev/bibframe-ontology/issues/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.