[MEI-L] FRBR in MEI

[Benjamin Wolff Bohl]

Jus a few words in my defence, after that I might just shut up on this

Am 16.11.2012 18:46, schrieb Johannes Kepper:
> Hi Benni,
>
> your interpretation of FRBR is just wrong. I agree that the handling of performances is not the most intuitive concept, but it seems quite consistent to me. You might want to look at the official specification document (http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf, official translations available from http://www.ifla.org/publications/translations-of-frbr).
Maybe it's not FRBR anymore but anyway, see below:
>
> A work is a totally abstract idea of something.
> An expression is a form of this work. It is catered for a specific instrumentation, and is set up for a specific purpose, but it's still no good.
It might be, but:
"expression (the intellectual or artistic realization of a work) " - 
http://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf , p. 13.

So for example a conductors concept on how to perform a piece with an 
orchestra, being somewhat like an edition of the work.
> A manifestation is the method of preserving an expression, of converting it to a physical thing.
"As an entity, manifestation represents all the physical objects that 
bear the same characteristics, in respect to both intellectual content 
and physical form." as above, p. 21.
All the performances the conductor held with that specific orchestra (at 
the same location?) well it might be that every single performance would 
need to be a separate manifestation as: no two days the same. But I 
still would like to group them as CONDUTOR's performances of WORK with 
ORCHESTRA as a manifestation, because each single performance would be 
an item then.
Of course looking at the examples in the above FRBR document I assume 
that this is something not really catered for as it doesn't seem to be 
an archivable object before time travels becoming reality, nevertheless 
one might want to.
> An item is the result of the manifestation, it is the physical thing.
The one performance I attenden. Again this is not archivable but 
nevertheless, looking at the examples in the FRBR document I cannot see 
any example for an item being a musical performance, they might have 
forgotten about it.

And of course the state that:
"any change in form (e.g., from alpha-numeric notation to spoken word) 
results in a new expression. Similarly, changes in the intellectual 
conventions or instruments that are employed to express a work (e.g., 
translation from one langua ge to another) result in the production of a 
new expression. "

So all the performances by the same artists with the very sam 
instruments should make up an expression, then conclusively a single 
performance would make up a manifestation having only a single item, as 
it cannot be repeated 1:1.
I would not see the differences too big between the individual 
performances to justify separate manifestations, as physicall the are 
the same, bringing me back to the thought: Why shouldn't a set of 
performances constitute a manifestation if the single performances 
(items) all are performed by the same conductor/orchestra etc. (artist)? 
If they can, what is the superordinate expression? he intellectual 
edition-like concept by the conductor?

> Let's consider a work called "Schreifütz". This is a very abstract thing, which has a relation to a different work called "Freischütz", and it's a parody of that. The "Schreifütz" exists in a version for nose flute and harpsichord, and a version for full orchestra. Those are expressions.
>
> If there is a print of the orchestra version, the whole print run would be the manifestation (in MEI called source), and the individual copies would be items. This helps to distinguish between the features common to all copies and individual copies (pencil markings etc.).
> If there is a manuscript of the nose flute version, the information about it would be spread between the manifestation (source) and the item. This is probably the most annoying compromise in FRBR, but it allows to be consistent across different media types. It's just not intuitive…
>
> A manifestation follows it's expression exactly, by definition there is no or nearly no difference. So if you have two more measures in a source, this source establishes a new expression in FRBR. This might not reflect traditional editorial concepts, but matches very well with genetic approaches. This required conformance between sources / manifestations of one expression is not restricted to the music, but explicitly includes the instrumentation: If you have another manuscript of the nose flute version, where the harpsichord is replaced by a piano, it would be a separate expression already. FRBR allows some leeway here, but officially the slightest change results in a new expression.
>
> Following these arguments, a performance is clearly an expression. Different musicians will result in a different expression. I'm not sure how to model repeated performances (Broadway shows…), but let's put that aside for now.
And that was the thing I've been thinking of. I don't know either but 
maybe we could find one together.
> You're right, you can't hold a performance in your hand. If you want to preserve a performance, you record it, that is, you manifest it on CD, tape, whatever. The recording will always reflect the version as given during the performance, and it will result in a number of items. Of course the recording / manifestation has certain technical inflictions on the content of these items, but the same is true for prints: An engraved copy will show different slurs than a typesetter copy than Craig's SCORE file. Those are artifacts of the technical process of manifesting an expression into items.
Ergo the engraved and the tyesetter copy will make up different 
manifestations of the same expression. As will in case of the recording 
will the two different forms of capturing the acoustic signal - maybe 
better cll it "the act of making a recording" as Perry called it.
> Now, if you and me perform the version of nose flute and harpsichord, what's the relationship between the nose flute / harpsichord expression and our performance? The latter is based upon the former, but they are clearly different. Maybe the original is less defined than ours (we already prescribe the performers being us), but that's a sibling relationship. We depend on this other one, but we create a new one, just like the composer correcting a preprint copy creates a new expression from it.
First our intellectual inflicitons make up for another 
expression.Consequently us practicing it and us performing it make up 
for two manifestations with our performance at Detmold musicology being 
the one and only item of the latter as we decided never to perform it 
again ;-)
I never said any different not even in my graphic where do I get that 
strinking red error?

/benjamin
> If someone tries to implement FRBR completely, it would result in a whole bunch of expressions, manifestations, and items. I guess not even librarians would do that to the extreme. That's why I think that Axel's compromise of putting performances in an eventList inside the expression is perfectly reasonable, especially since someone could use XSLT to extract them into separate expressions if needed.
>
> I hope my short explanation of FRBR was clear enough. If you have further questions, I'm happy to give it another try. Although I'm pretty sure that Axel, Kristina, and others can explain it better than me :-)
>
> Johannes
>
>
>   
> Am 16.11.2012 um 17:34 schrieb Benjamin Wolff Bohl:
>
>> Hi Axel et al.,
>> first tanks for correctiong my repeationg mistake concerning the items, which certainly did not increase clarity.
>> My head has continued working on the problematic dealing of FRBR with recordings and I tried to graphically sort out my thougts (as you can see in the attached image or [in case it doesn't go through] under http://homepages.uni-paderborn.de/bwbohl/MEI/Bohl_FRBR.jpg).
>> The graphic is sort of a table with work, expression, manifestation and item being the column labels. The contents first show a work with an edition and an auograph source, then a performance ("Interpretation by Kepper/Roland") and a recording (in red), and last some records (I just realize I missed putting an experssion before the records, sorry for that). Blue lines show hierarchical dependencies whereas green lines indicate a "based upon" relationship.
>> The idea behind it is, that a interpretation of a work by a certain conductor could be viewed as expression with him conduction a certain orchestra being a manifestation and the actual performance one a certain data at a certain location being the item (physical by means of the sound waves;-)
>> A recording again is another experssion of the work although depending on a certain interpretation-perfomance
>>
>> I'm not a FRBR expert so I don't know how this all conforms with the FRBR paper(s) but I would be happy to sort things out with you!
>>
>> /benjamin
>>
>> Am 14.11.2012 20:36, schrieb Axel Teich Geertinger:
>>> Hi Benni
>>>   
>>> some quick comments here and there...
>>>   
>>> Fra: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] På vegne af Benjamin Wolff Bohl
>>> Sendt: 14. november 2012 19:59
>>> Til: Music Encoding Initiative
>>> Emne: Re: [MEI-L] FRBR in MEI
>>>   
>>> Hi Axel,
>>> thanks for this huge insight into the FRBR-customization. Having considered some recording metadata in the Freischütz project I'll try to add my thought's on this topic.
>>> Sorry for adding late to this discussion, I had prepared this mail this morning in the train, then forgot to send it from work...
>>> See my comments inline
>>>
>>> Am 13.11.2012 13:21, schrieb Axel Teich Geertinger:
>>> Hi Johannes,
>>>   
>>> Thanks for your comments. Good and relevant as always. I think I better leave it to the more technically skilled people to answer most of it, but I have just a few comments.
>>>   
>>>>> 4)   There is a problem possibly emerging from the notation-centric nature of
>>>> MEI, or perhaps it is really a FRBR problem; namely the handling of performances
>>>> and recordings. FRBR treats them both as expressions, i.e. as "siblings" to what I
>>>> (and MerMEId) would regard as different versions of the work. We encode
>>>> performances using <eventList> elements within expression/history, i.e. as (grand-
>>>> )children of <expression>, which really makes sense to me. A performance must
>>>> be of a certain version (form, instrumentation) of the work, so I strongly believe we
>>>> should keep it this way. It's just not how FRBR sees it. On the other hand, as far as
>>>> I can see there is nothing (except the practical an conceptual difficulties) that
>>>> prevents users from encoding e performance or a recording as an expression, so
>>>> FRBR compliance is probably possible also in this respect. I just wouldn't
>>>> recommend it, and I actually suspect FRBR having a problem there rather than
>>>> MEI.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't looked this up, but are you sure that performances and recordings are on
>>>> the same level? I would see performances as expressions, while recordings are
>>>> manifestations. Of course a performance follows a certain version of a work, like
>>>> the piano version (=expression). But, the musician moves that to a different
>>>> domain (graphical to audio), and he may or may not play the repeats, and he may
>>>> or may not follow the dynamic indications of the score. There certainly is a strong
>>>> relationship between both expressions, but they are distinct to me. I see your
>>>> reasons for putting everything into an eventList, and thus subsuming it under one
>>>> expression, but that might not always be the most appropriate model. Sometimes,
>>>> it might be better to use separate expressions for the piano version and it's
>>>> performances and connect them with one or more relations.
>>>>
>>>   
>>> Sorry, my mistake. Now that I look it up I see you are right: performances are expressions, recordings are not. As I said, I haven’t really been looking into the recordings question yet. Here's an example from the FRBR report:
>>>   
>>> w1 J. S. Bach's Six suites for unaccompanied cello
>>> e1 performances by Janos Starker recorded partly in 1963 and completed in 1965
>>> m1 recordings released on 33 1/3 rpm sound discs in 1966 by Mercury
>>> m2 recordings re-released on compact disc in 1991 by Mercury
>>> e2 performances by Yo-Yo Ma recorded in 1983
>>> m1 recordings released on 33 1/3 rpm sound discs in 1983 by CBS Records
>>> m2 recordings re-released on compact disc in 1992 by CBS Records
>>>   
>>> So, recordings are no problem, I guess. But that still leaves us with two very different ways of encoding performance data. FYI, we have recently moved performance <eventList>s from <work> to <expression>, so we do subsume them under a particular expression already.
>>> First, I don't think, that a recording and a performance are really two different things,             but correct me if I'm missing something. The way to both of them is the same, only the recording might result in further manifestations.
>>>   
>>> That is exactly the problem I’m having with FRBR’s view on performances. I think of performance and recording as quite parallel to printed and manuscript sources: a recording is a sort of “printed performance”, i.e. one that may be reproduced in multiple copies and re-releases. A performance, like a manuscript, is a unique “event”, so just like a manuscript can only have one location (1 item), the performance manifestation also has just one item (it happens at a certain place at a certain time and is not repeatable until we invent time travel). And I tend to think that the performance must represent a specific expression of the work, but it may be more complex than that. However, to me all this indicates that performances should be treated as manifestations. But FRBR sees it differently. And since I treat them as events, I may have simply evaded the problem...
>>>
>>> Let's say you have a copy of a specific recording of a work. Interpreting your record as a expression of the work is fine. Interpeting the recording session as expression of the work can be rather problematic.
>>>   
>>> Well, MY record would be an item, i.e. a specific copy of the manifestation (the release). Right?
>>>
>>> The record you own is a manifestation of the recording (expression/?) which on the other hand will be the trans-medialization of specific performance material, having been worked with and modified by conductor and musicians in order to resemble the performance (manifestation) which again is based on a certain printed edition of the work (expression) possibly taking into account diffrences from other sources.
>>>   
>>> Again, the one I actually own is an *item* of the manifestation (just to make sure we agree on that...)
>>>
>>> Would one say that this makes the record inferior and nested deep inside the work-expression-manifestation of the written sources or rather a sibling expression-manifestation tree of the same work with strong relations to each other?
>>>   
>>> I would say that the recording manifestation and the written manifestation used for the recording would have strong manifestation-to-manifestation relations, but that they would not *necessarily* have the same parent expression. The musicians could have changed something, made cuts or other things not present in the performance material they played from. So we could also have sibling expressions here.
>>>
>>> I think it's the very right thing you did in moving the performance list to <expression>.
>>>
>>> Some further complications might arise from the following two thougts:
>>> (a)The record you may moreover be (an this is quite popular in recent years, especially with 'classical' msuic) the re-release of an older record (i.e. another manifestation of the same recording) but modified in order to fit the new medium, remastered and digitized and potentially even remixed (Vinyls have certain physical implications on the nature of the sound, whilst CDs or digital audio has different ones).
>>>   
>>> No problem, as I see it. Like in the FRBR example above, that would be a new manifestation of the recording expression.
>>>
>>> (b) The record doesn't com alone, it has a booklet, which could be referenced from <extent>? This booklet will incorporate texts by different persons and again if re-released might incorporate the old booklet and add additional material.
>>>   
>>> Good question. This would be a bundle of relations pointing in all directions, perhaps. I have no good answer to that right away...
>>>   
>>> /axel
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>> See you later,
>>> Benjamin
>>>
>>>   
>>>>> 5)   Finally, an issue related to the FRBR discussion, though not directly a
>>>> consequence of it: MEI 2012 allows multiple <work> elements within <workDesc>. I
>>>> can't think of any situation, however, in which it may be desirable to describe more
>>>> than one work in a single file. On the contrary, it could easily cause a lot of
>>>> confusion, so I would actually suggest allowing only one <work> element; in other
>>>> words: either skip <workDesc> and have 1 optional <work> in <meiHead>, or keep
>>>> <workDesc>, and change its content model to be the one used by <work> now.
>>>>
>>>> Again, I think that this perspective is biased from your application, where it makes
>>>> perfect sense. Consider you're working on Wagner's Ring. You might want to say
>>>> something about all these works in just one file. All I want to say is that this is a
>>>> modeling question, which is clearly project-specific. It seems perfectly reasonable
>>>> to restrict merMEId to MEI instances with only one work, but I wouldn't restrict MEI
>>>> to one work per file. This may result in preprocessing files before operating on
>>>> them with merMEId, but we have similar situations for many other aspects for MEI,
>>>> so this isn't bad per se.
>>>   
>>> In the Ring case, we are talking about the individual dramas as components of a larger work. This would probably be one of the situations where <componentGrp> would come in handy as a child of <work> (which the customization allows already). I would be reluctant, however, to include them as four <work> elements directly under <workDesc>. To clarify what that would mean, it would be necessary to specify work-to-work relations. Furthermore, there wouldn’t be any place to put metadata concerning *all* four works, since we would be at top level already.
>>>   
>>> Best,
>>> Axel
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> <Bohl_FRBR.jpg>_______________________________________________
>> 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