[MEI-L] Antw.: symbol/symbolDef
Roland, Perry (pdr4h)
pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu
Thu Mar 22 14:54:11 CET 2012
Hi, Benni,
Instructions for "drawing" the symbol go in <symbolDef>.
The simple answer to your question is, Use @scale on <symbol> to specify the size of a particular occurrence of the symbol.
The more complex answer is, Rendering is a coordinated (pun intended) dance between/amongst the values of @page.units and @page.scale (found in att.scoreDef.vis), the values of <symbolDef>'s @ulx, @uly, @lrx, and @lry attributes (from att.coordinated), and <symbol>'s @scale attribute (in att.scalable).
Does that help?
--
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 Benjamin W. Bohl [bohl at edirom.de]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 3:05 AM
To: mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
Subject: [MEI-L] Antw.: symbol/symbolDef
Ok, this all seems plausible. But warming up the second issue: How would I go about supplying rendition information for the unknown neume? That should happen in the symbolDef, shouldn't it? How do I give a reference size, indicating how big the symbol is in comparison to other symbols or e.g. the line distance?
B
----- Reply message -----
Von: "Roland, Perry (pdr4h)" <pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu>
An: "Music Encoding Initiative" <mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de>
Betreff: [MEI-L] symbol/symbolDef
Datum: Mi., Mär. 21, 2012 15:01
> But back to the original question: It seems that using <symbol> or
> @altsym for classifying unknown symbols (in any context) isn't
> something that I should encourage in the guidelines. At least that's
> my interim conclusion of the discussion so far.
Correct. Especially since your example can be simplified, as in the following:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mei xmlns="http://www.music-encoding.org/ns/mei">
<meiHead>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title/>
</titleStmt>
<pubStmt/>
<sourceDesc>
<source>
<physDesc>
<handList>
<hand xml:id="handB">
<name>Beta</name>
</hand>
<hand xml:id="handC">
<name>Gamma</name>
</hand>
</handList>
</physDesc>
<history>
<creation>
<geogName xml:id="mon_Alpha">monastery Alpha</geogName>
</creation>
</history>
</source>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
</meiHead>
<music>
<facsimile>
<surface>
<graphic target="facsimile00001.jpg"/>
<zone data="#symbolAB123_description" xml:id="symbolAB123_example" ulx="180" uly="66"
lrx="220" lry="81"/>
<zone data="#symbolCD456_description" xml:id="symbolCD456_example" ulx="3475" uly="1290"
lrx="3510" lry="1302"/>
</surface>
</facsimile>
<body>
<mdiv>
<score>
<scoreDef>
<!-- scoreDef-y stuff-->
</scoreDef>
<annot xml:id="symbolAB123_description" plist="#symbolAB123_example">This symbol can be found in sources stemming from <ref
target="#mon_Alpha">monastery Alpha</ref> and is used by hands <ref target="#handB"
>Beta</ref> and <ref target="#handC">Gamma</ref>. It frequently appears after a
clivis. It's meaning is unknown. </annot>
<annot xml:id="symbolCD456_description" plist="#symbolCD456_example">
<!-- Something interesting about this symbol -->
</annot>
<section>
<staff>
<layer>
<syllable>
<syl>bla</syl>
<uneume name="clivis"/>
<uneume facs="#symbolAB123_example"/>
</syllable>
<syllable>
<syl>bla</syl>
<uneume name="clivis"/>
<uneume facs="#symbolAB123_example"/>
<uneume facs="#symbolCD456_example"/>
</syllable>
<!-- ... -->
</layer>
</staff>
</section>
</score>
</mdiv>
</body>
</music>
</mei>
Instead of using <symbolDef> as an intermediary, uneume/@facs points directly to the facsimile/zone. annot/@plist also points to the zone so that every uneume doesn't have to be enumerated, however, I think this is somewhat suspect. It's better to just pick one neume as an exemplar:
...
<annot xml:id="symbolAB123_description" plist="#symbolAB123">This symbol can be found in sources stemming from <ref
target="#mon_Alpha">monastery Alpha</ref> and is used by hands <ref target="#handB">Beta</ref> and <ref target="#handC">Gamma</ref>. It frequently appears after a clivis. It's meaning is unknown. </annot>
...
<uneume xml:id="symbolAB123" facs="#symbolAB123_example"/>
...
--
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 TW [zupftom at googlemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 3:54 AM
To: Music Encoding Initiative
Subject: Re: [MEI-L] symbol/symbolDef
2012/3/20 Roland, Perry (pdr4h) <pdr4h at eservices.virginia.edu>:
>> When talking with the Corpus monodicum people from Würzburg about
>> encoding their data in MEI, the problem occured that occansionally
>> they find neumes that they cannot interpret (yet). However, those
>> neumes aren't just sloppily written, they clearly manifest a certain
>> kind of symbol as it is found repeatedly (for example within the works
>> of a certain scribe). @facs doesn't express this, while @altsym could
>> do.
>
> Please forgive me, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. @facs doesn't express what? The fact that they can't / don't want to say what a certain symbol is / means? What does @altsym do in this case that @facs doesn't?
>
> Whatever "it" is, @facs points to a region of an image and says "there it is", while @altsym points to a vector graphic and says "this is how you draw it". Neither of these attributes has anything to do with interpretation.
>
> Both of these require the encoder to make a decision about what "it" is by choosing an MEI element. So, for a neume one can say
>
> <neume @facs="d1" altsym="us1"/>
> <!-- This is a neume, it's there at "d1", and instructions for rendering it are at "us1" -->
>
> Are you wanting <symbol> to function as a generic marker for an unknown sign? That is, if a symbol's meaning is unknown, then are you looking for markup like --
>
> <symbol @facs="d1 d2 d3 d4 d5"/>
>
> saying, in effect, "I don't know what this thing is, but it occurs 5 times"?
No, I was more thinking about something like this:
<mei xmlns="http://www.music-encoding.org/ns/mei">
<meiHead>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title/>
</titleStmt>
<pubStmt/>
<sourceDesc>
<source>
<physDesc>
<handList>
<hand xml:id="handB">
<name>Beta</name>
</hand>
<hand xml:id="handC">
<name>Gamma</name>
</hand>
</handList>
</physDesc>
<history>
<creation>
<geogName xml:id="mon_Alpha">monastery Alpha</geogName>
</creation>
</history>
</source>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
</meiHead>
<music>
<facsimile>
<surface>
<graphic target="facsimile00001.jpg"/>
<zone data="#symbolAB123_description"
xml:id="symbolAB123_example" ulx="180" uly="66"
lrx="220" lry="81"/>
<zone data="#symbolCD456_description"
xml:id="symbolCD456_example" ulx="3475" uly="1290"
lrx="3510" lry="1302"/>
</surface>
</facsimile>
<body>
<mdiv>
<score>
<scoreDef>
<symbolTable>
<symbolDef xml:id="symbolAB123">
<symbol facs="#symbolAB123_example"/>
</symbolDef>
<symbolDef xml:id="symbolCD456">
<symbol facs="#symbolCD456_description"/>
</symbolDef>
</symbolTable>
</scoreDef>
<annot startid="#symbolAB123">
This symbol can be found in sources stemming from <ref
target="#mon_Alpha">monastery Alpha</ref>
and is used by hands <ref target="#handB">Beta</ref> and
<ref target="#handC">Gamma</ref>.
It frequently appears after a clivis. It's meaning is unknown.
</annot>
<annot startid="#symbolCD456">
<!-- Something interesting about this symbol -->
</annot>
<section>
<staff>
<layer>
<syllable>
<syl>bla</syl>
<uneume name="clivis"/>
<uneume altsym="#symbolAB123"/>
</syllable>
<syllable>
<syl>bla</syl>
<uneume name="clivis"/>
<uneume altsym="#symbolAB123"/>
<uneume altsym="#symbolCD456"/>
</syllable>
<!-- ... -->
</layer>
</staff>
</section>
</score>
</mdiv>
</body>
</music>
</mei>
Does it at least make some sense? It's not valid MEI as I gave the
<symbol> elements inside symbolDef only a @facs rather than a @ref.
(Unfortunately, there aren't any examples for <annot>, <handList>,
<creation> or <facsimile> on Google Code, so I'm using them as I
understand them. But they're only meant as illustrative background
actors, anyway.)
>
> This doesn't sound right to me because you already said they have *neumes"neumes", right? So what's wrong with calling them neumes by using the <neume> element?
>
Of course <uneume> would have to be used. <uneume> has the @name
attribute that can be used to classify the symbol. If there is a
symbol that doesn't fall in any of the categories that @name offers,
but still can be identified as a certain symbol, I would have used an
@altsym to point to the symbol, like shown above. Of course one could
use <annot> or something to say "This is the neume of special type
pink-dog-with-green-tail", but I think @altsym is more accessible and
less cluttered. For example, it's very straightforward to formulate a
search query "Find me all occurrences of pink-dog-with-green-tail".
Or if it should be found out that this is just a strange way of
writing a torculus, then @altsym can be replaced with the proper
@name.
But back to the original question: It seems that using <symbol> or
@altsym for classifying unknown symbols (in any context) isn't
something that I should encourage in the guidelines. At least that's
my interim conclusion of the discussion so far.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
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
More information about the mei-l
mailing list