[MEI-L] Encoding Square Notation

[Roland, Perry (pdr4h)]

Andrew,

Let me do a little house cleaning in the McGill repo first.  I'm waiting on the results of a little poll of the other members of the technical team, but I should have this done by early next week.  Then we'll talk about where to put the new stuff.

Yes, RNG and XSD are the targets right now.  We hope that by early next year, the target will switch to ODD, but you don't need to worry about that now.

My modus operandi has been to work in RNG (because I find it easier to comprehend) and then use Trang from inside oXygen to convert to XSD.  Periodic testing of this conversion is a good idea as there are some things that can't be automagically translated.  But if the conversion doesn't work, then it's a clue that you're being too RNG-centric and you should find another way of writing the schema.

I think a good starting point would be to modify the neumes module and then the mei-all driver file to include your modified neumes module instead of the original one.  We can take up the possibility of using the current neumes module plus a solesmes module later.

Regarding episemata:

Rather than using the values "horizontal", "vertical", "both" --

>> <syllable>
>>   <syl>DE_</syl>
>>   <uneume xml:id="d1e1" name="punctum">
>>      <note pname="c" oct="4"/>
>>   </uneume>
>> </syllable>
>> <syllable>
>>   <syl>us</syl>
>>      <uneume xml:id="d2e1" name="punctum">
>>         <note pname="c" oct="4" episema="both" />
>>                 **OR**
>>         <note pname="c" oct="4">
>>            <episema type="horizontal" />
>>            <episema type="vertical" />
>>         </note>
>>      </uneume>
>> </syllable>

I think it would be easier to mesh with any meaning(s) in other repertoires later, if you chose values based on what's being indicated rather than the visual symbol.  For instance --

<syllable>
  <syl>DE_</syl>
  <uneume xml:id="d1e1" name="punctum">
    <note pname="c" oct="4"/>
  </uneume>
</syllable>
<syllable>
  <syl>us</syl>
  <uneume xml:id="d2e1" name="punctum" episema="compoundbeatbeginningandslightlengthening">
    <!-- OR elements instead of the attribute:
    <episema value="slightlengthening" />
    <episema value="compoundbeatbeginning" /> -->
    <note pname="c" oct="4"/>
  </uneume>
</syllable>

Of course, these particular values are absurd, but you get the point.  A more appropriate value for "compoundbeatbeginning" is "ictus" (if I read the Harvard Dictionary correctly), but I'm less sure about the other ones.  I hope Stefan will suggest values for the others.  Stefan?

Also, it seems to me that the episema attribute belongs on the neume, not on the note children, as these are there to provide a ready translation into modern pitch and duration.  Placing the episema attribute on notes would make the attribute available throughout MEI, which is probably not a good idea.  However, the episema values could be translated into modern notation pretty easily; e.g. episema value="slightlengthening" translates to note artic="ten", etc.

The articulation attribute allows multiple tokens for those cases where several articulation signs occur on the same note.  A similar approach could be used here --

<uneume xml:id="d2e1" name="punctum" episema="compoundbeatbeginning slightlengthening">
    <!-- OR elements instead of the attribute:
    <episema value="slightlengthening" />
    <episema value="compoundbeatbeginning" /> -->
    <note pname="c" oct="4"/>
</uneume>

This doesn't preclude using multiple elements as above, which is probably what you'd want to do in OMR.

In addition, you'll notice that I changed your type attribute on episema to "value".  I think it's good practice to use @type to indicate the *classification of the element itself, not its contents.*  For example, <name type="personal">Perry Roland</name> as opposed to <name type="composer">Perry Roland</name>.  The first seems to me like a good use of @type -- it classifies the name, not Perry Roland.  Down the second path is ruin and death. :)

The doubling dot attached to a neume should be accommodated in a similar fashion as episema.  The dots attribute can be cribbed from modern notation, if the dot following a neume is always a dot of augmentation.  I don't think that the difference in the amount of augmentation between neume and modern notation; i.e., double vs. 1 and a half times, presents a significant problem as there will always be different rendering rules for the different repertoires.  But, as always, I defer to experts in the repertoire.

Looking back over my suggestions, it seems to me, in the absence of other information, that ultimately the meaning and function of "episemata" might be somewhat equivalent to articulations.  It might be a good idea to exploit the parallels even if the terminology is different.

--
p.

__________________________
Perry Roland
Digital Curation Services
University of Virginia Library
P. O. Box 400155
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4155
434-982-2702 (w)
pdr4h at virginia.edu
________________________________________
From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] On Behalf Of Andrew Hankinson, Mr [andrew.hankinson at mail.mcgill.ca]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 4:43 PM
To: Music Encoding Initiative
Subject: Re: [MEI-L] Encoding Square Notation

Understood re: experiments. Hopefully we'll do a good enough job! :)