[MEI-L] Colla parte

[Roland, Perry (pdr4h)]

Joachim,

Of course, this solution, like any other, has a hidden dragon or two or three:

1. It's a general solution for a specific problem and therefore runs the risk of overloading the semantics of <ref>.

2. It won't be possible to add that transformational stuff I alluded to in an earlier message (if we ever want to), such as "go get that stuff and transpose it up a 4th."

3. There are technical issues with actually implementing it.  It requires implementing some kind of "look ahead" procedure if the data is being processed as a stream or getting the entire file into memory and then resolving the reference. In other words, it requires multiple passes through the data.  It might be best to encourage the resolution of these references via MEIron.

Even so, these are the documents we have to represent.  I'm not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure that Weber wasn't intentionally trying to confound our markup scheme. :)

--
p.


__________________________
Perry Roland
Music Library
University of Virginia
P. O. Box 400175
Charlottesville, VA 22904
434-982-2702 (w)
pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
________________________________________
From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Joachim Veit [veit at weber-gesamtausgabe.de]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:06 AM
To: mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
Subject: Re: [MEI-L] Colla parte

Hi Perry,
that sounds perfectly reasonable - many thanks!! The huge advantage of
this procedure is the possibility to separate the stuff which has to be
embedded, e.g. we could embed only the notes but also the dynamics and
not the articulation or something vice versa or double vice versa...
And the semantics of pointer is really the thing which Raffaele meant
too, I think?
In so far I am really happy with this solution - and we shall be
experimenting until we find the dragon which maybe is hidden behind the
next corner (>:o ...). But for the moment we stay absolutely 8-) !
Best greetings, while we again are spending our time for our most
esteemed work: writing a new grant proposal....
Joachim


Am 07.09.11 00:30, schrieb Roland, Perry (pdr4h):
> Hi Joachim,
>
> After some thinking about it, I don't believe we need a new element to describe the "go-get-something-and-put-it-here" behavior.  The xlink attributes available on<ref>  and<ptr>  will do the job.
>
> In the following example, the 1st staff contains a symbol that indicates the contents of the 2nd staff should be inserted.  This can be indicated using the actuate and show attributes on<ptr>  -- @show says what to do (embed=put the content here) and @actuate says when to do it (onLoad=when I load the document).
>
> <measure>
>    <staff>
>      <layer>
>        <!-- Colla parte -->
>        <choice>
>          <abbr>
>            <symbol ref="#p1"/>
>          </abbr>
>          <expan>
>            <!-- reference to the contents of the bass part -->
>            <ptr target="#basso" xlink:actuate="onLoad" xlink:show="embed"/>
>          </expan>
>        </choice>
>      </layer>
>    </staff>
>    <staff>
>      <layer xml:id="basso">
>        <note/>
>        <note/>
>        <rest/>
>        <note/>
>      </layer>
>    </staff>
> </measure>
>
> A means for identifying the content of the target that should be processed is not available, but an @xpointer attribute could be added for this purpose.  Using xpointer syntax one could say "get the contents (or some of the contents) of the element called "basso", NOT the element itself. For example,
>
> <ptr target="#basso"  xlink:actuate="onLoad" xlink:show="embed" xpointer="element(basso/note)"/>
>
> would retrieve and embed the note children of "basso", but not the rest.  If @xpointer was not present, either the element identified as "basso" or its contents could be retrieved, depending on the behavior we want to define. However, the first behavior would be a re-implementation of @copyOf, so the second seems like a more logical default.
>
> --
> p.
>
> __________________________
> Perry Roland
> Music Library
> University of Virginia
> P. O. Box 400175
> Charlottesville, VA 22904
> 434-982-2702 (w)
> pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
>
>
>
> From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Joachim Veit [veit at weber-gesamtausgabe.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:38 PM
> To: mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> Subject: Re: [MEI-L] Colla parte
>
>
> Dear Eleanor, Perry and Raffaele,
> thanks a lot for this helpful discussion (or the beginning of a discussion for release 2013/05 ?)
> <quote resp="Perry">"Enough to think about for the weekend?"</quote>
> Perry, you see that this was for more than one weekend ;-)  , and please excuse the late answer.
>
> 1. First I think that for the first we can live with your proposal of using<choice>  together with orig/reg or abbr/expan.
> For a longer term we should, maybe, prefer to have your<ggsapih>  ("go-get-something-and-put-it-here") or something generic - not<copyOf>  but something in Raffaele's sense:<goCopy>  (go and copy the measure below).
> Concerning<reg>  and<expan>  I normally understand them as giving the "resolved abbreviation" in the form a "today's user" is used to, e.g. a fully expanded form of a half note with a stroke through the stem (as a mark for repetition of four eighth-notes). But in the context of the manuscript "//" as a colla-parte-sign may signal that you "go and copy the measure below" and that measure may consist of two half notes with strokes through the stem - and this has nothing to do with expansion or regularization. Thus I think that the solution is ok for the next release but not a fully satisfying one?
>
> 2. Concerning Raffaele's hint that the double lines // (or something similar) have to be seen in conjunction with the "c.B."<quote resp:"Raffaele">"if col Basso ... means 'play the current measure at the Basso staff' ..., the same meaning will be repeated by // in the following measure</quote>  struck me at the first reading as a totally convincing interpretation of the "//" signs. But returning to the manuscript I begin to be a doubting Thomas again. Please haave a lookt at: http://digital.staatsbibliothek-berlin.de/dms/werkansicht/?PPN=PPN65499935X&PHYSID=PHYS_0064
> There you find "col Tenore" and "col Basso" (bottom-middle) and the strokes // are beneath these words - so they are not a repetition sign here. And differing from the measure-repeats in the last bars of this page in violins and violas (staff 7-9 from top) we find the next hints in the chorus staffs (no. 2-3 from bottom) as double lines // crossing the bar line (that is continued on the next page). And as a further motive we have the "unis:[ono] in line 5 from top (middle)", again with a //-sign. (Besides: the // in b. 3/4 of the flute - staff 1 from top - are a repetition sign for bars 1/2 on this page) - so the "//" has very different meanings here, but always have something to to with "repetion".
> In the case of "colla parte", "in 8va", "col Basso", "unisono" etc. it is not necessary that this verbal "prescription" is explicit: Look at:
> bibliothek-berlin.de/dms/werkansicht/?PPN=PPN65499935X&PHYSID=PHYS_0025&USE=800
> In the cello-staff there is only "//" without any "c.B." (and I think that Eleanor hinted at the fact that this form is often to be found with other composers - but you know that I am only acquainted with this strange Weber.... :-[ ). So we really have to be careful what we define in the header as the symbols used combined with their "meaning".
>
> 3. As soon as we connect "//" with any form of meaning we are interpreting the signs (and behave as editors - even if we add "col Basso" where we only find //). And Eleanor's examples show that in many cases there is a lot of  wiggle-room here! But if we continue the work of encoding the manuscript of the Freischuetz-overture I think we should differentiate at least between a<symboldef>  of "//" that denotes pure measure (or half-measure) repeats (and are normally used quite strictly: as repetition signs in each measure or at least on the bar-lines if meant for a 2-measure-unit) and those which show a "freer distribution", but at least in Weber's case are preferably used as sign "on a bar-line" for the<goCopy>-mechanism?
>
> Nevertheless a generic element with the function of "go and bring something from another bar here in this place" would really be of some advantage!?
>
> I hope that this makes the discussion not too confusing - but that seems to be my special part at the moment ;-) .
> Best greetings,
> Joachim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Am 03.09.11 18:56, schrieb Raffaele Viglianti:
> Hi Perry,
>
>
>
>
>   isn't "making more explicit" the meaning of something exactly what correcting, regularizing and expanding do?  For instance, if I mark "P.R." as an abbreviation and "Perry Roland" as its expansion, am I not making the meaning of "P.R." more explicit?
>
>
>
>
> I think that in this case, the act of "making explicit" is suggesting a textual replacement:
> P.R. -->  Perry Roland
>
>
> and this is true for all the paired choices of sic/corr, orig/reg, etc. This is an editorial intervention that directly influences the symbols that make the text.
>
>
> In the case of col Basso, the act of "making explicit" is defining a function:
> "col Basso" -->  go and copy the measure below
>
>
> This is why I don't think that there is any editorial intervention here, it is a matter of explaining what this symbol "is". (Let's set aside the fact that arguably, when doing a transcription, everything is editorial interpretation; even using<note>)
>
> the words "col Basso" (or the wiggly line, whatever) remain separate from the realization encoding.  To do otherwise, would wreak havoc upon the distinction between events and control events that's built into MEI.  Unless someone WANTS to start over from scratch. :)
>
>
>
> Ok, I understand and agree, sorry if I jumped to suggesting a new element too fast! :) Still, I think that the direction "col Basso" itself is functioning as a hypothetical "copyOf" element rather than its editorial expansion. But if the direction and its function must be kept separated to follow the event / control event distinction, then fine. What I think should be evident from the encoding, though, is that this falls out of editorial interventions, and falls into the category of saying what some text "is", which is what happens with a lot of MEI elements (this is a note, this is a direction, ...).
>
>
> Best,
> Raffaele
>
>
> BUT, what the content of<expan>  or<reg>  should be is a different question.  In the examples above and in the examples in the TEI guidelines, the content is explicitly stated; that is, every misspelling of the same word carries the same regularization.
>
> For those situations where the regularization exists elsewhere in the encoding, we could create a generic, "go-get-something-and-put-it-here" element.  I only suggested the name "colla" as a discussion-starter.  I believe it probably needs a more generic name, perhaps "copyOf", that would allow it to function in cases other than just colla parte.  Eleanor's point about references occuring just about anywhere is correct, although there's only so far we can go and maintain explicit markup.  Followed to the extreme, the markup becomes entirely procedural, not a good thing.  Already, the<copyOf>  element introduces the same problems @copyof, namely, which parts of the target should actually be copied -- certainly not the target's @xml:id and probably not it's @n either.
>
> For the time being, I'd prefer solutions such as those above that use existing elements / attributes in order not to delay the next release.  We can take up the question of a "copyOf" element and the philosophical issues related to what a regularization "really" is later.
>
>
> --
> p.
>
> __________________________
> Perry Roland
> Music Library
> University of Virginia
> P. O. Box 400175
> Charlottesville, VA 22904
> 434-982-2702 (w)
> pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
>
>
>
>
> From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Raffaele Viglianti [raffaeleviglianti at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2011 6:58 AM
> To: Music Encoding Initiative
> Subject: Re: [MEI-L] Colla parte
>
>
>
> Dear Joachim and all,
>
>
> Having had the opportunity to look at other parts of der Freischuetz manuscript, I think one might look at this situation in another way: the symbols  // or .//., etc. actually indicate to look back at the previous measure.
> Also in the case that described, I am inclined to think that // actually means a repetition of the instruction col basso to be found in the previous measure.
>
>
> Given this interpretation, it is sufficient to define what "col Basso" does, and the repetition symbols will just copy over the same meaning.
> Basically, if col Basso in this context means "play the current measure at the Basso staff" (which is different from "play the measure with xml:id='foo'"), the same meaning will be repeated by // in the following measure.
>
>
> To define what col Basso does, an element like the one suggested by Perry might be useful. Perhaps<colla target="#STAFFid">col Basso</colla>  or similar.
>
>
> Regarding<supplied>, I think we need to clarify better its role and align it with TEI as much as possible. Perry's use seems a bit incorrect to me, because the element should be used to supply text that cannot be read or is not there at all and should be. In this case the symbol is there, the editor makes its meaning explicit. An element like<colla>  that would somehow include the objections of the people at the back of the room, might be sufficient to make explicit the meaning of the symbol in question.
>
>
> Using sic / corr or orig / reg or abbr / expan seems a bit odd to me as well, because it's not a matter of replacing one (or many) symbol(s) with another (or many others) for the purpose of correcting, regularizing or expanding, but it's a matter of making more explicit the meaning of a less-standard sign.
>
>
> Hope this helps!
>
>
> Raffaele
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Roland, Perry (pdr4h)<pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu>  wrote:
>
> Hi Joachim,
>
> Let me re-state the issue to see if I understand it correctly --
>
> 1. Weber (is there any other composer worth talking about?) draws some version of a slash-symbol-thing to indicate that the current measure should be filled in with material from another instrument.
>
> 2. You want to record the original version (with the slash symbol) and give its "expansion" (as it were)?
>
> First, are you sure this problem can't be resolved using<orig>  and<supplied>  (or perhaps<reg>)?  For example, each measure of the flute part might be encoded --
>
> <measure>
>   <staff n="1">
>    <layer>
>      <choice>
>        <orig>  <!-- some repetition sign(s) here -->  </orig>
>        <supplied>  <!-- a copy of the content of the vln. part -->  </supplied>
>      </choice>
>    </layer>
>   </staff>
> <dir staff="1" tstamp="1">colla parte ...</dir>
> <!-- instead of the words there might be a<line>  -->
> </measure>
>
> This seems like a good solution to me because it is explict.
>
> I'm using<supplied>  because the actual substitution doesn't take place in the score, there's only an indication that it "ought" to happen. Actually making it happen is up to the editor -- the human being, not the software.
>
> Of course, what's missing is a link between the<supplied>  element and the words "colla ..." (or a "wiggly" line), which I presume is in the flute part). At present, the editorial intervention can only be explained in the editorialDecl.  But, if we put our heads together, we might be able to think of another method of linking these.  (Perhaps with an<annotation>, which has pointers to the "participants"; that is, the<supplied>  and<dir>  elements, and a type attribute value of "collaparte"?)
>
> I don't know if you remember, but MEI originally had a different definition for<mRpt>.  It didn't necessarily indicate the repetition of the preceding measure, but rather the repetition *of any other measure*, "repetition" being defined somewhat loosely, of course.  This definition went the way of the dodo bird when the editorial elements (add, del, orig, reg, etc.) were added since the attribute (don't remember what it was called off the top of my head) pointing to the source measure duplicated these editorial elements' function.
>
> However, I recognize that there's currently no good way of implementing a reference to content given elsewhere in the document.  So, perhaps we should consider adding such a specialized element.  In the example above, the content of<supplied>  would be the<colla>  (or some such name) element.
>
> <measure n="1">
>   <staff>
>    <layer>
>      <choice>
>        <orig>  <!-- some repetition sign(s) here -->  </orig>
>        <supplied>  <colla/>  </supplied>
>      </choice>
>    </layer>
>   </staff>
> </measure>
>
> Of course, it would need an attribute pointing to the content of the vln. part.  In a way, this element would be similar to<ref>, although<ref>  is intended for navigation, while<colla>  indicates "go get the content and put it here."  This is also not unlike internal parsed entities. This element would also need to be related to the<dir>  or<line>  elements. We could think about using its generic corresp attribute or give it a new, specialized attribute.
>
> (I can already hear some noises in the back of the room about some attribute or attributes for describing whatever transformation must be applied to the source, such as "transposed up a 5th", "inverted and retrograde", etc.  I'm not ready to go there yet!  There be dragons!)
>
> It might also need a more generic name than "colla".  Then it could be used for other situations where content given in one location needs to be referenced in some other.  Can't think of a good name off the top of my head, too late in the day.
>
> Just in case someone asks, I don't think XInclude can point to a location in the current document.
>
> Enough to think about for the weekend?  :)
>
> --
> p.
>
> __________________________
> Perry Roland
> Music Library
> University of Virginia
> P. O. Box 400175
> Charlottesville, VA 22904
> 434-982-2702 (w)
> pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
> ________________________________________
> From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] on behalf of Joachim Veit [veit at weber-gesamtausgabe.de]
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 3:43 PM
> To: mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> Subject: [MEI-L] Colla parte
>
>
> Dear MEI-L-Readers,
>
> when encoding manuscripts MEI has the possibility to encode
> measure-repeats or half-measure-repeats which are found in the original
> manuscripts in a form similar to: // or .//.  (two strokes through the
> barlines or something similar) with<mrpt>  or<halfmrpt>. This has
> always a clear reference to the bar (or half-bar) before.
>
> The same symbols are used in manuscripts in combination with the "col
> Basso" or other "colla-parte"-instructions.
> Again in Weber's Freischuetz-Overture (we never do something other...)
> we have a contrabbasso with<staff n="16">  and above this the
> violoncello with<staff n="15>. Weber notates the contrabbasso in a
> normal way and in the cello-staff we find only "c. B." (= bar 1) and
> afterwards //   //    // etc.
> For a modern edition we could label the layer of the contrabbasso with
> an xml:id="2011" and put in the layer of staff 15:<layer n="1"
> copyof="2011"/>.
>
> But in this case we want to encode the "original" situation! So we first
> have to define in the scoredef:
> <scoredef>....
> <symboltable>
> <symboldef xml:id="symCollaParte"/>  <!-- here we describe the symbol(s)
> Weber and others use in this case -->
> </symboltable>
> </scoredef>
>
> and within our staff 15:
> <staff n="15">
> <layer n="1">
> <symbol ref="symCollaParte"/>
> </layer>
> </staff>
> In this case the reference is not always clear: it might go to the staff
> below (as in this case) or the staff above (if the cello is written out
> and the cb-staff is pointing to the cello) or even from a flute to the
> first violin 5 systems below. So there should be some mechanism to make
> clear where the model is situated. And second: We should have the
> possibility to use "c. B." (or something similar) as a symbol-phrase
> (which at the same time "defines" the model) and for the following bars
> simply use "//" (or something similar) (maybe even one symbol for 2-3
> bars together??).
> Is this case already considered in the future guidelines?
>
> Best greetings and a happy weekend,
> Joachim
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l