No subject

the characters, even outside of their visual appearance. They're indicated =
as such in the introduction to the _Liber_ and in most other texts, so I wo=
uld imagine it's how most people would be able to refer to them. It's true =
that the vertical can also be known as the "ictus," but that may be a bit c=
onfusing since that also describes the pulse of the chant as well. The vert=
ical episema is just showing an *explicit* ictus, usually indicating a plac=
e where the pulse changes from e.g. 3 to 2 or vice-versa, while the absence=
 of a mark may just indicate a continuation of an implicit ictus.

If Stefan has any suggestions, that would be great.

>=20
> 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 in=
to 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=3D"slightlengthening" translates to note=
 artic=3D"ten", etc.

There is a difference. A vertical only appears on a single neume, either al=
one or within a ligature, but a horizontal one can go over a single note, a=
n entire ligature, a partial ligature, or even a number of ligatures. You c=
an see a pretty complex example here:

http://coltrane.music.mcgill.ca/square_notation/sanctus_excerpt.png

Would using a "plist" attribute make sense here, using IDs to refer to eith=
er a ligature or a note?

e.g.:
...
<uneume xml:id=3D"d1g1">
  <note xml:id=3D"d1n1" .../>
  <note xml:id=3D"d1n2" .../>
  <note xml:id=3D"d1n3" .../>
</uneume>
<episema value=3D"horizontal" plist=3D"d1n1 d1n2" /> // horizontal episema =
over two notes in the ligature
  *** OR:***
<episema value=3D"horizontal" plist=3D"d1n1" /> //horizontal episema over t=
he whole ligature
<episema value=3D"vertical" plist=3D"d1n3" /> // vertical episema on just t=
he third note.
...

Your later comment about episemata being equivalent to articulation is corr=
ect, but I couldn't really think about many articulation marks that are app=
licable to both a single note and a number of notes. The closest I could th=
ink of was a trill. In the MEI examples, this is encoded with "startid=3D" =
and "endid=3D" for the note events that it's attached to. Would this be pre=
ferable than the "plist=3D" notation? Would an episema on just one note hav=
e a "startid" and no "endid" or would they both just be the same value?


>=20
> The articulation attribute allows multiple tokens for those cases where s=
everal articulation signs occur on the same note.  A similar approach could=
 be used here --
>=20
> <uneume xml:id=3D"d2e1" name=3D"punctum" episema=3D"compoundbeatbeginning=
 slightlengthening">
>    <!-- OR elements instead of the attribute:
>    <episema value=3D"slightlengthening" />
>    <episema value=3D"compoundbeatbeginning" /> -->
>    <note pname=3D"c" oct=3D"4"/>
> </uneume>
>=20
> This doesn't preclude using multiple elements as above, which is probably=
 what you'd want to do in OMR.

The more I think about it, the less I think having an attribute for this is=
 necessary. We would almost certainly need to add an attribute to the <note=
> element if we do go that route, which you're right to point out that we p=
robably don't want to make available through the entire schema. We don't ne=
ed this as an attribute, I think.

>=20
> 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 *class=
ification of the element itself, not its contents.*  For example, <name typ=
e=3D"personal">Perry Roland</name> as opposed to <name type=3D"composer">Pe=
rry Roland</name>.  The first seems to me like a good use of @type -- it cl=
assifies the name, not Perry Roland.  Down the second path is ruin and deat=
h. :)

I generally try to avoid ruin and death, so your sage advice on @type is du=
ly noted! What about taking something from the <uneume> element and using t=
he "@name" attribute, if indeed we come to the conclusion that "horizontal"=
 and "vertical" are their names?

>=20
> 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 th=
ink that the difference in the amount of augmentation between neume and mod=
ern notation; i.e., double vs. 1 and a half times, presents a significant p=
roblem as there will always be different rendering rules for the different =
repertoires.  But, as always, I defer to experts in the repertoire.

I don't know of any other use for the dot in this repertoire, so I think yo=
u're right.=20

>=20
> 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 explo=
it the parallels even if the terminology is different.

I'll keep investigating this, but in the meantime it would be great to hear=
 from others if they have any opinions on this. We'll probably download the=
 schema and start doing our modifications to it this week, but we'll wait u=
ntil you do your housecleaning before putting anything in the repository.

Thanks!

-Andrew