[MEI-L] FRBR in MEI

David Meredith dave at titanmusic.com
Wed Nov 21 22:41:01 CET 2012 

"musicbrainz_guid"
"amazon_asin"
"myspace"

So is the idea that a new property has to be added each time someone
builds a new electronic catalogue? Doesn't seem particularly scaleable. Or
are there just going to be some arbitrarily privileged catalogues that
have associated properties?

- Dave Meredith, Aalborg
 


On 21/11/2012 10:11, "Tim Crawford" <t.crawford at gold.ac.uk> wrote:

>Dear All,
>
>While I have absolutely no wish to get further involved in this
>fascinating discussion, it strikes me that yes, indeed, much of what
>Benjamin is talking about may be handled better by a music ontology.
>
>And such a thing - the Music Ontology - has now reached an advanced
>state of development by researchers at the BBC and elsewhere over a
>number of years. For details and specification, see:
>
>     http://musicontology.com/
>
>I'm not sure this alone (or even the entire apparatus of the Semantic
>Web) will solve all the problem cases you might encounter or devise,
>but at least it might relieve some of the pressure caused by a desire
>to encode *everything* about a musical work within MEI ...
>
>Keep up the great work!
>
>Tim Crawford, London
>
>On 21 Nov 2012, at 08:24, Benjamin Wolff Bohl wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>> first thanks to Axel for sorting out that FRBR is for bibliographic
>> items and thus performances, that we have nothing more of than the
>> knowledge it happened are out of scope.
>> I've somehow been thinking too much towards somthing like a music
>> ontology.
>> Moreover the idea of having a hierarchy in FRBR might have mislead
>> me, prooving Peter's earlier mentioned concerns regarding this true.
>>
>> Nevertheless we still got the recordings to deal with!
>> So Johannes, let's continue to disagree ;-)
>>
>>> Hi Benni,
>>>
>>> I hope I got one of your last mails wrong (in this regard), but
>>> just in case I didn't: By no means I wanted to keep you from
>>> commenting on this (or other) thread(s), as your comments are
>>> extremely valuable and helpful ­ even if I sometimes disagree. If I
>>> offended you somehow, that wasn't my intention, and I want to
>>> apologize for it.
>>>
>>> That being said, I may continue to disagree ;-) Actually, I don't
>>> think we're that far away. The one thing you seem to get wrong
>>> though is the process from expression to manifestation, which is in
>>> no case trivial and a mere technological step without artistic
>>> contribution. When you consider the efforts necessary to engrave a
>>> piece of music, or the work on the preparation of the WeGA scores
>>> we see every day, you will agree that even in the graphical domain,
>>> this step is indeed highly artistic and involves a whole bunch of
>>> people with different expertise. I agree that the workflows for
>>> making recordings are different, but both things seem to be
>>> comparable from this perspective, don't you think?
>> I neither think that we are too far away from each other now. And I
>> never wanted to say that the transiton from expression to
>> manifestation was a mere technical, but maybe I should have
>> explained a little more what my initial graphic was all about with
>> the recordings, as by no means it would involve a mere technical
>> step. Beginning from the way the recording engineer set up his
>> microphones and what he did on his audio desk, across quite a couple
>> of steps involving editing (cutting, rather technical but
>> nevertheless with artistic implications), mixing (very artistic) and
>> mastering(as artistic as technical), that all would result in
>> archive material quite a lot of intellectual/artistic work is
>> involved in a record(ing).
>>
>> I'll have a try on this:
>> WORK - examination -> edition (e1) ------------- engraving -> print
>> run (m1) -printing -> print copy (i1)
>>
>> If you have the above, and try to get a parallel idea on the way to
>> the copy of a record on your shelf (i2):
>> (1) What will be expression?
>> (2) What will be manifestation?
>> (3) Is one stream of e-m-i this sufficient?
>>
>> WORK - examination -> artist's inpterpretation (e2) - -
>> >              ?             -> record copy (i2)
>>
>> or
>>
>> WORK - recording   ->          ?          - mastering -> label's
>> press run -pressing (m2) -> record copy (i2)
>>
>> Maybe let's try to fill this with one of Don's "Greatful" examples:
>> The Song "Truckin" has been released Nov 1 1970 on the album
>> "American Beauty" and as a single. The album was recorded in AUG-
>> SEP 1970, although it might be the single version was recorded in
>> SEP or maybe this specific song was recorded in SEP.
>>
>> Truckin (w1) --> 1970-08 to 1970-09 Session Tapes (e2) --> 1970-11-1
>> Warner bros. release of "American Beauty" album (m2) --> record copy
>> (i2)
>> Truckin (w1) --> 1970-08 to 1970-09 Session Tapes (e3) --> 1970-11-1
>> Warner bros. release of "Truckin" single (m3) --> record copy (i3)
>>
>> But the single version and album version differ quite a lot, album
>> length 5:09 and single 3:13 so we should specify a little more.
>>
>> Truckin (w1) --> 1970-08 to 1970-09 Session Tape album-verison (e2)
>> --> 1970-11-1 Warner bros. release of "American Beauty" album (m2) --
>> > record copy (i2)
>> Truckin (w1) --> 1970-08 to 1970-09 Session Tape single-version (e3)
>> --> 1970-11-1 Warner bros. release of "Truckin" single (m3) -->
>> record copy (i3)
>>
>> A little complication: the single version was not recorded but taken
>> from the album version and edited down from 5 to 3 minutes
>> nevertheless it is a own expression, but it hints us twords some
>> items that might reside in an archives shelf, namely:
>> - session tapes : the tapes from the recording session (potentially
>> multi-track)
>> - edit tapes : the tapes where all the nice parts from the session
>> tapes were cut together to make up the material for the work
>> (potentially multi-track)
>> - mix tapes : a stereo mix version including lots of additional
>> features like for example delay effects etc. resembling the final
>> version
>> - master tapes : an acoustically slightly reshaped version of the
>> mix tape version in order to fit the technical limitations of a
>> certain target medium like vinyl and some intellectual work to
>> smoothen the mix (e.g. making all songs on a record sound similar)
>>
>> If they are relevant for my MEI file, they should go into <source>,
>> but where should these go in FRBR?
>> Maybe they should all be separate expressions with strong relations
>> to each other?
>> So actually the only one in the direct same "FRBR hierarchy" would
>> be the master tape?
>>
>> Truckin (w1) --> 1970-09-XX "Truckin" Master Tape (e3) --> 1970-11-1
>> Warner bros. release of "Truckin" single (m3) --> record copy (i3)
>>
>> If I don't know about all the tapes I might just put?
>> Truckin (w1) --> 1970-08 to 1970-09 recordings --> 1970-11-1 Warner
>> bros. release of "Truckin" single (m3) --> record copy (i3)
>>
>> or?
>>
>> Truckin (w1) --> 1970 Version (e3)--> 1970-11-1 Warner bros. release
>> of "Truckin" single (m3) --> record copy (i3)
>>
>> What do you think, is there still a problem?
>> Is there anything interesting for you in the above?
>>
>>> Besides that, I totally agree that FRBR is not extremely
>>> prescriptive regarding how to model certain situations, but after
>>> thinking about it for some time, I (now) think that this is
>>> actually a benefit, as it doesn't enforce a specific setup, but
>>> allows projects to implement it as they see fit. So in the end, I'm
>>> not against your approach in general, I'm just against enforcing
>>> your approach. The current implementation of FRBR in MEI tries to
>>> keep this openness of FRBR, which I regard as a good thing. In the
>>> end, all of us could be wrong ;-)
>> I never wanted to enforce anything only to show up possibilities to
>> be considered when implementing FRBR or test the current
>> implementation against. And I think you're absolutely right that an
>> openness could be a benefit as we certainly will miss possible
>> complicated situations.
>>
>> <salutation>benjamin</salutation>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Johannes
>>>
>>> Am 20.11.2012 um 12:33 schrieb Axel Teich Geertinger:
>>>
>>>> Hi Benni
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we should remember that FRBR is intended for
>>>> _bibliographic records_, not for descriptions of a work's
>>>> reception history. Thus, the premise for using FRBR is that in the
>>>> end we want to describe bibliographic items. Since a performance
>>>> itself isn't a bibliographic item, perhaps it does not have to fit
>>>> in? Only if it results in such an item (via manifestation), i.e. a
>>>> recording, it becomes truly relevant to use FRBR. The performance
>>>> in that case is not the primary thing we want to describe, it is
>>>> just the context that resulted in the recording manifestation.
>>>>
>>>> Just another 2 cents,
>>>> Axel
>>>>
>>>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>>>> 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: 20. november 2012 11:57
>>>> Til: Music Encoding Initiative
>>>> Emne: Re: [MEI-L] FRBR in MEI
>>>>
>>>> Hi Perry,
>>>> thanks for some clarifying approaches
>>>> further statements inline
>>>>
>>>> Am 16.11.2012 22:25, schrieb Roland, Perry (pdr4h):
>>>>> Random comments on the discussion so far.  Sorry if this gets long.
>>>>>
>>>>> When contemplating performances and recordings, it seems to me
>>>>> that people often have trouble reaching agreement on the term
>>>>> "sound recording".  Andrew's slides label the *expression* as
>>>>> "the sound recording", but others might label the *manifestation*
>>>>> as "the sound recording".  You might say the expression is the
>>>>> "act of making a recording" and the manifestation is the
>>>>> "recording that results".
>>>>>
>>>>> To disentangle the different uses of the term "recording", it
>>>>> helps me to remember that an expression is not a physical entity,
>>>>> but a manifestation is.  Therefore, I prefer to think of the
>>>>> expression as "the performance" (the non-physical thing being
>>>>> recorded) and the manifestation as "the recording" (the physical
>>>>> thing).  This fits with the way libraries have traditionally
>>>>> cataloged recordings, i.e., CDs, LPs, cassettes, wax cylinders, ...
>>>> I completely agree on that, being the reason why I used both the
>>>> terms recording and record with record being on the manifestation/
>>>> item-level and recording being rather on the expression-
>>>> manifestation-level. Why so? Recording has to be subordinate to
>>>> work after all and a recording is not just a simple physical
>>>> manifestation but a multistep process involving conceptual and
>>>> creative work done by producers and engineers.
>>>> So talking about a recording as only being a manifestation becomes
>>>> problematic as it is a intellectual process resulting in a
>>>> physical manifestation. That's the way I was looking on it (owed
>>>> to my audio engineering past) and of course it can be seen
>>>> differently.
>>>>> In any case, the FRBR document, which Axel cites, says a
>>>>> *performance is an expression* and a *recording is a
>>>>> manifestation*.
>>>> This is perfectly plausible when disregarding the intellectual
>>>> endeavour entangled with the "act of making a recording", as
>>>> mentioned before.
>>>>> The usual "waterfall" kind of diagram is explained by saying the
>>>>> term
>>>>> "work" applies to conceptual content; "expression" applies to the
>>>>> languages/media/versions in which the work occurs; "manifestation"
>>>>> applies to the formats in which each expression is available; and
>>>>> "item" applies to individual copies of a single format.  (Here
>>>>> "media"
>>>>> means "medium of expression", say written language as opposed to
>>>>> film,
>>>>> and "format" means physical format, as in printed book as opposed
>>>>> to
>>>>> audio CD.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Taking another tack, though, often it is easier for me to think
>>>>> of FRBR "from the bottom up", rather than start from the work and
>>>>> proceed "down" the waterfall diagram.  Using the recording
>>>>> example, the item is the exemplar I hold in my hand, the
>>>>> manifestation is all of the copies of that exemplar (or better
>>>>> yet, all the information shared by all those copies), the
>>>>> expression is the version of the work that is represented by the
>>>>> manifestation (e.g., Jo's nose flute + harpsichord version and
>>>>> the orchestral version are different expressions), and the work
>>>>> is an intellectual creation/idea (e.g., Bohl's op. 1, the one
>>>>> that goes da, da, da, daaaaaa, reeep! reeep! reeep!).
>>>>>
>>>>> Using this "bottom up" thinking helps avoid mental contortions
>>>>> regarding what the work is -- the work is simply the thing at the
>>>>> end of this mental process.  From there on, there are work-to-
>>>>> work relationships, so we don't have to think about whether
>>>>> "Romeo and Juliet", "Westside Story", and every other story about
>>>>> star-crossed lovers are expressions of an ur-work with its own
>>>>> manifestations and so on, which lead us to a different
>>>>> "waterfall" conclusion each time we discover a new work or
>>>>> expression.
>>>> The idea of approaching the FRBR model "from the bottom" is great.
>>>> And to be honest was something I did when drawing my model,
>>>> especially concerning the record and recording portion of it. I
>>>> started out from work on the top right and from the individual
>>>> record bottom right and tried to fill in as many steps as
>>>> possible, always wondering whether it be physical or conceptual.
>>>> Actually I had the recording in between expression and
>>>> manifestation in the first place, as I had the audio tape or
>>>> digital audio in between manifestation and item.
>>>> The parallel processes from a wok to an item (regardless of
>>>> whichever form this may have) are owed to perspective and goal.
>>>> When talking about graphical sources I completely agree with the
>>>> idea of a certain instrumentation version or the like being an
>>>> expression, a print run being a manifestation an individual copy
>>>> of which would be an item.
>>>>> Instead of creating separate expression-level markup for each
>>>>> performance, Axel treats some expressions (performances) as
>>>>> events related to another expression of a work (the orchestral
>>>>> version vs. the nose flute version).  This is fine.  As Johannes
>>>>> already pointed out, separate <expression> elements for the
>>>>> performances can be generated from the <eventList> markup, if
>>>>> necessary.  Conversely, there's nothing wrong with creating
>>>>> separate <expression> elements for each performance and relating
>>>>> them to other appropriate expressions and/or relating them
>>>>> directly to the work.  If necessary, given accurate place and
>>>>> date information, the <eventList> kind of markup could be created
>>>>> from the separate <expression> elements.  So, six of one ...
>>>> I can agree here, too. I only wondered if the sound wave resulting
>>>> from the performance was the physical item (specific performers on
>>>> a specific date), then consequently a series of performances by
>>>> conductor and orchestra would make up for the manifestation, the
>>>> expression then would be the concept that the conductor developed
>>>> studying his "source material" and making up the way he wanted the
>>>> composition to be realized ergo his "personal version" of the
>>>> piece, somewhat of a personal edition.
>>>> The performance material of course being an item of a certain
>>>> print run
>>>> (manifestation) of a certain edition (expression), having strong
>>>> relationships to all of the above.
>>>>> Johannes said "If there is a manuscript of the nose flute
>>>>> version, the information about it would be spread between the
>>>>> manifestation (source) and the item."  Well, maybe.  But, I think
>>>>> in this case it would be fine to describe the manifestation and
>>>>> the item in a single place (within <source> in MEI) because
>>>>> there's only one manifestation and one (and only one) item
>>>>> associated with that manifestation.  This is the traditional way
>>>>> manuscripts have been described, pre-FRBR.  Practically speaking,
>>>>> the manifesation and the item are the same thing.  But, as soon
>>>>> as you want to say something special about a particular *part*
>>>>> (as in "chunk", not performer part) of the manifestation, you
>>>>> have to split these up again, for example, when one section of a
>>>>> manuscript is located in Prague and another is in Manitoba.
>>>> This was the idea behind me marking/stretching the autograph from
>>>> expression to item.
>>>>
>>>> /benjamin
>>>>> This is not the case with printed material where there is
>>>>> *always* more than one item created from a manifestation, but it
>>>>> is still traditional to describe the manifestation and item as
>>>>> though they are the same thing.  For example, it is common to
>>>>> follow the manifestation's author, title, place of publication,
>>>>> etc. with information about the location where one can obtain an
>>>>> examplar of the manifestation, say, UVa Library M 296.C57 1987.
>>>>>
>>>>> Johannes also said "So if you have two more measures in a source,
>>>>> this
>>>>> source establishes a new expression in FRBR."  Again, maybe.  The
>>>>> FRBR
>>>>> report (1997, amended and corrected through 2009) says
>>>>>
>>>>> "Variations within substantially the same expression (e.g.,
>>>>> slight variations that can be noticed between two states of the
>>>>> same edition in the case of hand press production) would normally
>>>>> be ignored or, in specialized catalogues, be reflected as a note
>>>>> within the bibliographic record for the manifestation. However,
>>>>> for some applications of the model (e.g., early texts of rare
>>>>> manuscripts), each variation may be viewed as a different
>>>>> expression."
>>>>>
>>>>> The issue is in the determination of whether 2 things are
>>>>> "substantially the same expression".  As with many things, this
>>>>> depends on the person making the determination, there is no
>>>>> single correct answer.  We intend that MEI will provide the tools
>>>>> for accurate description using either approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my 2 cents,
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> p.
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________
>>>>> Perry Roland
>>>>> Music Library
>>>>> University of Virginia
>>>>> P. O. Box 400175
>>>>> Charlottesville, VA 22904
>>>>> 434-982-2702 (w)
>>>>> pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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