[MEI-L] Ontologies (was FRBR in MEI)

Benjamin Wolff Bohl bohl at edirom.de
Thu Nov 22 19:11:08 CET 2012 

Hi Dave,
thanks for contributing to this discussion.

> "musicbrainz_guid"
> "amazon_asin"
> "myspace"
the musicbrainz_guid and amazon_asin are boh identifiers that can be 
entered into MEI as depending on what it means for your project, e.g. as 
identifier as @dbkey or the like.
A similar solution can be found in an ontology.
>
> 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.
Depending on your project you might want to add these identifiers to 
your MEI file or not. So I guess it is scalable to your needs, or am I 
getting this wrong?
> Or
> are there just going to be some arbitrarily privileged catalogues that
> have associated properties?
Can you explain this question a little more? Which catalogs are you 
meaning for example and where would their properties be associated?

Cheers, Benjamin

>
> - 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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