[MEI-L] Notation type

[Andrew Hankinson, Mr]

I agree with Peter & Raffaele that notation type is not a Bibliographical classification ("metadata"), but rather actual "data" present in the music itself. 

To take this argument to an absurd level, we could also classify documents by their use of G, C, or F clefs and add the terms "G Clef", "C Clef" or "F Clef" in <classification /> without actually giving an @clef.shape in the music data of the document. Then we could just use @decls to "point" to the term in the classification on <staffDef />. But we don't, because we recognize that @clef.shape has implications for the data being encoded and not just a category for organizing and grouping documents.

Without an explicit notation definition in the document are we actually assuming that one notation style (cmn?) is the "default" for MEI? I know that this has historically been the case, but since we're now trying to expand beyond CMN, then I think we need an explicit declaration of notation style(s) being used.

Like Raffaele, I think we should pre-declare the different notation types, either in <profileDesc /> or (what I might prefer) in a <notationDef /> section directly in the music body, similar to <scoreDef />, <staffDef />, <layerDef />, etc.

Since we're now talking about possible new features for MEI and not the current state of the spec, I'm OK with moving this to the development list. If you're not on the development list but want to stay on top of this conversation, e-mail me and I'll make sure you get copied on any further discussion.

On 2011-09-21, at 11:50 AM, Peter Stadler wrote:

> 
> Am 21.09.2011 um 15:51 schrieb Raffaele Viglianti:
> 
>> My point wanted to be that by generalizing this idea to MEI (which has already been done with several other (non-)bibliographical aspects), it would be nice to have in the header a place where to define/describe all the type of notation styles present in the document (regardless of its source; ms, print, born digital) and be able to specify within the document which style is in use at what point.
> 
> I think we are in total agreement. My only concern was where exactly in the header to put that information -- and I confess that I'm a bit wary with the tei:msDesc because I think there is way too much information collected there that doesn't belong there (when you are not a historian working (solely) with the description of manuscripts). 
> So, thanks for mentioning born digital documents which offer a good criterion for where to put this information. In my opinion, sourcedesc stays empty for born digital documents (except an appropriate statement "born digital ...") but all the bibliographic information is recorded in the other descendants of filedesc. Ergo, the type of notation should not (solely) be recorded under source/classification.
> 
> All the best
> Peter
> 
> PS: I'm still not convinced that the notation style is a bibliographic feature. Anyhow, isn't that an anachronistic cataloguers view? Shouldn't we try to see the texts behind the bibliographic items? ;-)
> _______________________________________________
> mei-l mailing list
> mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-l