[MEI-L] Encoding of personal names

Thu Feb 7 12:05:20 CET 2013

Only a quick follow up question and response (see inline)

Am 07.02.2013 10:44, schrieb Johannes Kepper:
> Hi all,
>
> I would really like to get around this can of worms, but I can't resist any longer ;-)
>
> All these elements are syntactic sugar – author, editor, funder, sponsor, arranger, composer, librettist and lyricist. Benjamin's posting showcases that it is not absolutely clear why we have exactly this selection of sugar drops. I for myself feel equally inconvenient with it, as does Kristina (if I got her right in a recent discussion in Detmold). It seems like drawing a line is easy, but agreeing on and justifying that line is less easy. Therefore, my question is whether we really need to draw that line. MEI existed without that syntactic sugar for quite some time, and I don't remember major complains about this as a missing feature. Wouldn't it be much better to delegate that to individual projects, which could add their own flavor of sugar, and document what they did in their own ODD? (Yes, we need better resources for explaining how to actually do that…).

If I understand this right, you propose not to have these syntactic 
sugar elements in the schema but to stick to <respStmt> with <resp> and 
either <persName> or <corpName> and suggest to add sugar by referencing 
corresponding authority codes.
  As mentioned before there might be cases where no corresponding 
authority code exists (as with encoder in MARC). The I could either find 
a different autority or just not supply the authority @s.

Fine with me - does make processing easier!
Any other opinions on that?

Now to the next point of discussion:
>
> Regarding the mixed use of <resp> and <name>, please note the current guidelines, which read on page 25 (chapter 2.1.1: Title Statement):
>
> "While <resp> accommodates capturing the wide variety of text that may occur in responsibility statements, use of the @role attribute provides the possibility of recording a controlled value independently of the textual content of <resp>. The use of @role is required for improved data processability and interchange."
>
> Basically, <resp> is used to transcribe the wording in a source, whereas @role on the name itself is better suited (and therefore recommended) for processing the data. On the following page, there is also a reference to the MARC list Benjamin mentioned:
>
> "Values from the MARC relator code list (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relacode.html) or term list (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) are recommended for @role, where applicable."
>
> Of course, this does not solve the starting question, but it illustrates that it may occasionally help to read the friendly manual ;-)
> Best,
> Johannes

I completely understand what the guidelines state here but regarding the 
schema design for <resp> implies that it is meant differently:
When transcribing the wording of the source in <resp> what use do 
@authority and @authURI have as I cannot supply this info with the 
authorities code for that certain type of responsibility, ergo something 
similar to @role in <persName> would be required, maybe @dbkey or 
comparable could fill this gap?

cheers,
benni

>
>
>
>
> Am 07.02.2013 um 09:36 schrieb Benjamin Wolff Bohl:
>
>> Hi Kristina and List:eners!
>> In the past few months I've been dealing with the idea of capuring the metadata of published records in MEI and to start out I decided for the harest part ;-) A recording was made publicized and later re-issued on a differnet sound carrier, additional work done by technicians and additional text parts completed this re-issue.
>> As you might imagine, I came across quite a lot of responsibility statements and I find it very convnient to stitch to the MARC code list for Relators.
>> Thus I can understand Perry's idea and might even support to
>>
>>> 1. return to the list provided by TEI -- author, editor, funder, meeting, principal (as in principal investigator), sponsor, and respStmt,
>>> 2. but drop meeting and principal, and
>>> 3. add arranger, composer, librettist, and lyricist.
>>> In this scheme, <arranger>, <composer>, <librettist>, and <lyricist> for musical compositions are equivalent to <author> for textual material.  The <author> element *should not* be used for lyricists or librettists.
>> Though making a decision here always weans to draw a line. But where to draw the line?
>> Arranger could still be dropped as his activity might be secondary or even tertiary use of the work.
>>
>> Then on the other hand when moving forward in the publication process more and more persons fill different and nevertheless very important roles. For example, when talking modern times an editor has extensive influence on the gestalt of the publicized/published work. And another very important role is that of the engraver (or typesetter however to call the function in digital times). Now going this road a bit we are very fast to come across someone being the encoder, as depending on workflow and technologies used, encoding and setting the music might overlap at some point.
>>
>> And for me this is an essential question that can be drawn from Kristina's post. Oe could even discuss of putting the encoder as <author> or <editor> in <fileDesc> as <fileDesc> is not about the music but about the encoded data (although opening another question with this...). And this is where the encoder has primary and extensive influence. And, if I'm not mistaken, there is no MARC code for this!
>> **Thus I would propose of having such an element to compensate this!**
>>
>> Another thing that has come to me - opening yet another bottle -  is the encoding that Perry's second example shows, as I came across this in my metadata.
>>
>>> titleStmt>
>>>    <title>My Music, Op. 1</title>
>>>    <respStmt>
>>>      <resp>Composer</resp>
>>>      <persName>Composer de Jure</persName>
>>>      <resp>Lyricist</resp>
>>>      <persName>Johann Collaborator Bach</persName>
>>>      <resp>Arranger</resp>
>>>      <persName>Arranger Man</persName>
>>>      <resp>Encoders</resp>
>>>      <persName>[encoder 1]</persName>
>>>      <persName>[encoder 2]</persName>
>>>    </respStmt>
>>> </titleStmt>
>> Although straightforward the content of <respStmt> leaves me with a shudder, as no explicit mapping of <resp> and <persName> is to be observed. I would very much prefer to see something like this:
>>
>>    <respStmt>
>>      <resp>Composer</resp>
>>      <persName>Composer de Jure</persName>
>>    </respStmt>
>>    <respStmt>
>>      <resp>Lyricist</resp>
>>      <persName>Johann Collaborator Bach</persName>
>>    </respStmt>
>>    <respStmt>
>>      <resp>Arranger</resp>
>>      <persName>Arranger Man</persName>
>>    </respStmt>
>>    <respStmt>
>>      <resp>Encoders</resp>
>>      <persName>[encoder 1]</persName>
>>      <persName>[encoder 2]</persName>
>>    </respStmt>
>>
>> Adding some MARC relator code either in @role on <persName> or in <resp> with the corresponding @authURI would be helpful since providing a mapping to a controlled vocabulary. Although even here the setup could be discussed:
>>
>> 1) Why to supply <resp> if I can provide @role and @authURI on <persName>?
>>
>>    <respStmt>
>>      <persName role="cmp" authUri="...MARC...">Composer de Jure</persName>
>>      <persName role="lyr" authUri="...MARC...">Johann Collaborator Bach</persName>
>>      ...
>>    </respStmt>
>>
>> 2) How to supply the laguage-specific role description that Eleanor pointed out in the discussion?
>> Is <resp> the right place?
>>
>> <respStmt>
>>      <resp>Komponist</resp>
>>      <persName>Composer de Jure</persName>
>>    </respStmt>
>>
>> Apparently not, as it only may have attributes to relate the included string to a controlled vocabulary.
>> maybe:
>>
>> <respStmt label="Komponist">
>>      ...
>> </...>
>>
>> This would make necessary a <respStmt> for each role to be supplied. Which even is a good idea to group multiple names (as seen in preceeding examples by Kristina and Perry ).
>> The again this would miss someting like @xml:lang which could allowed on <resp> if used for a label.
>>
>> Then if detailed description is not of primary interest, one could come up with a flat hierarchy:
>>
>>    <respStmt>
>>      <persName role="cmp" authUri="...MARC...">Composer de Jure</persName>
>>      <persName role="lyr" authUri="...MARC...">Johann Collaborator Bach</persName>
>>      ...
>>    </respStmt>
>>
>> or:
>>
>> <respStmt>
>>      <resp xml:lang="de_DE">Komponist</resp>
>>      <persName>Composer de Jure</persName>
>>    </respStmt>
>>
>>
>> That's it for now. Sorry for getting lengthy and raising even more questions.
>> As I'm no metadata expert I see that at some points I might have been too focused on transcription instead of metadata, please excuse ;-)
>> In expectation of a nice discussion,
>>
>> Benjamin
>>
>>
>> Am 05.02.2013 18:23, schrieb Roland, Perry (pdr4h):
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>   
>>> I can see now that my plan to provide <creator> and <contributor> as replacements for TEI's <author> element isn't defensible because it's causing more confusion than it alleviates.  So, I suggest that we
>>>   
>>> 1. return to the list provided by TEI -- author, editor, funder, meeting, principal (as in principal investigator), sponsor, and respStmt,
>>> 2. but drop meeting and principal, and
>>> 3. add arranger, composer, librettist, and lyricist.
>>>   
>>> As in TEI, any roles not specifically provided for by this list, such as conductor, encoder, and so on, belong in <respStmt>, for example --
>>>   
>>> <titleStmt>
>>>    <title>My Music, Op. 1</title>
>>>    <composer>Composer de Jure</composer>
>>>    <lyricist>Johann Collaborator Bach</lyricist>
>>>    <arranger>Arranger Extraordinaire</arranger>
>>>    <respStmt>
>>>      <resp>Encoders</resp>
>>>      <persName>[encoder 1]</persName>
>>>      <persName>[encoder 2]</persName>
>>>    </respStmt>
>>> </titleStmt>
>>>   
>>> In this scheme, <arranger>, <composer>, <librettist>, and <lyricist> for musical compositions are equivalent to <author> for textual material.  The <author> element *should not* be used for lyricists or librettists.
>>>   
>>> MARC relator code list (http://www.loc.gov/marc/relators/relaterm.html) provides more than 200 codes/terms for roles, several of which apply to music and musical performances.  There's no way we can accommodate them all.  So, it makes sense to continue the TEI method of recording those responsible for the *intellectual content* of the work in special elements and relegating other roles to <respStmt>. (I think this actually stems from ISBD and AACR2, not TEI.)
>>>   
>>> The addition of these elements *does not* mandate their use; that is, <respStmt> can be used for all responsibilities.  The following markup is a valid alternative to the example above:
>>>   
>>> <titleStmt>
>>>    <title>My Music, Op. 1</title>
>>>    <respStmt>
>>>      <resp>Composer</resp>
>>>      <persName>Composer de Jure</persName>
>>>      <resp>Lyricist</resp>
>>>      <persName>Johann Collaborator Bach</persName>
>>>      <resp>Arranger</resp>
>>>      <persName>Arranger Man</persName>
>>>      <resp>Encoders</resp>
>>>      <persName>[encoder 1]</persName>
>>>      <persName>[encoder 2]</persName>
>>>    </respStmt>
>>> </titleStmt>
>>>   
>>> This form can be easier to produce mechanistically from other encoding schemes and is conformant with forms of cataloging that don't require a "main entry" approach, meaning that it would be easier to transform into one of those systems, such as MODS.
>>>   
>>> Also, it's necessary to keep in mind that since <fileDesc> is a kind of bibliographic citation, elements used here are also available in (and must also fit within the purpose of) other elements, such as <bibl> and <work>.
>>>   
>>> Best wishes,
>>>   
>>> --
>>> 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 Eleanor Selfridge-Field [esfield at stanford.edu]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 4:39 PM
>>> To: 'Music Encoding Initiative'
>>> Subject: Re: [MEI-L] Encoding of personal names
>>>
>>> Kristina poses interesting questions.  Instinctively I would go for “composer”, “encoder,” etc and err on the side of being verbose and explicit.  With electronic data, being able to track who encoded what (with version number and date) can be very valuable.
>>>   
>>> I find labels such as “creator” and “corporate name” very unwieldy, particularly when working in a second language (in my case usually Italian).  Italian bibliographical databases a full of these kinds of terms, but there is something subtly cultural about the misunderstandings they can create.  The various instantiations of a single work can have many creators—a composer, an arranger, and editor, a translator of the text, and in the case of recording a conductor, performer, performing group, etc. Because they can all pertain to a single work, a general label deprives the user of knowing what the role of each one was.
>>>   
>>> A much messier area is dating.  A single work can have an almost endless number of “year”s—of composition, publication, first performance, revision <1..n>, arrangement, recording, text translation, etc.  There too being more specific saves time for those searching.
>>>   
>>> Best regards,
>>>   
>>> Eleanor
>>>   
>>>   
>>> Eleanor Selfridge-Field
>>> Consulting Professor, Music (and, by courtesy, Symbolic Systems)
>>> Braun Music Center #129
>>> Stanford University
>>> Stanford, CA 94305-3076, USA
>>> http://www.stanford.edu/~esfield/
>>>   
>>>   
>>>   
>>> From: mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de [mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] On Behalf Of Kristina Richts
>>> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 9:55 AM
>>> To: mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>>> Subject: [MEI-L] Encoding of personal names
>>>   
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> during the work on the MEI sample collection, questions appeared on how to encode the creators of each electronic file correctly.
>>> In MEI2012 the normal path (or better said: the way, we first chose to encode it) was to encode several <persName>-elements within the statement of responsibilty. A differentiation between several involved persons only became apparent through additional @role-attributes, i.e.
>>> <respStmt>
>>>     <persName role="composer">Anton Webern</persName>
>>>     <persName role="creator">John Doe</persName>
>>> </respStmt>
>>>
>>> In a second step we decided not to encode ourselves as "creators" of the file (although we are), but as "encoders" and to assign the composer of the encoded work as creator, i.e.
>>>
>>> <respStmt>
>>>     <persName role="creator">Anton Webern</persName>
>>>     <persName role="encoder">John Doe</persName>
>>> </respStmt>
>>>
>>> The decision is based on the fact, that we encode the intellectual creation of a composer's work. We tried to keep up the distinction between the composer and the encoder.
>>>
>>> MEI2013 will offer some new elements to specify the role of persons, organizations etc. a bit more: <creator>, <contributor>, <editor>, <funder> and <sponsor>.
>>> In this regard it is now the question how to encode this best:
>>>   
>>> <respStmt>
>>>      <creator>
>>>          <persName>Anton Webern</persName>
>>>      </creator>
>>>      <creator>
>>>         <persName>John Doe</persName>
>>>      </creator>
>>> </respStmt>
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> <respStmt>
>>>      <creator>
>>>          <persName role="composer">Anton Webern</persName>
>>>      </creator>
>>>      <creator>
>>>         <persName role="encoder">John Doe</persName>
>>>      </creator>
>>> </respStmt>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> We first thought, it would be a good idea, to add a <composer> element to the list. But that alone would not be sufficient, as the creative aspect regarding musical works is difficult to manage. In this case, we would rather have to extend the list by adding some more elements like <arranger>, <lyricist>, etc. But this can soon become very unwieldy.
>>>
>>> I have to admit that I don't prefer to encode detailed specifications only within child elements. However, if we choose to maintain the 'more detailed elements', I would at least like to see some mandatory child elements, such as <persName>, <name>, <corpName> etc., in there.
>>>
>>> When thinking about all this, I came to the conclusion, that it might be enough to allow a <creator> and a <contributor> element (with some mandatory child elements). I am not even sure, if we should offer a separate <editor> element or if an editor should be considered as a contributor as well.
>>> What is to be said against a specification of the role on the <creator> or <contributor> element? Wouldn't this make things easier to handle for the encoder, who might not know as much about the encoding of persNames with MEI?
>>>
>>>   
>>> Any comments on this?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Kristina
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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