[MEI-L] Interpreting @tstamp2

Johannes Kepper kepper at edirom.de
Mon Jul 8 11:02:06 CEST 2013

Hi Zoltán,

congrats, you've spotted another underspecification. You're absolutely right – it makes no sense to calculate the distance and timestamp of the range all by the first meter if that is changed later on. The "2m" part is clearly independent from the meter, and for the "+3" part, the "ending measure" should be regarded as current (so that in case of a meter change from 4/4 to 6/8, it would denote the third eighth in this case). 

Can you file a bug report on Google Code?


Am 08.07.2013 um 10:56 schrieb Kőmíves Zoltán <zolaemil at gmail.com>:

> Hi All, 
> I'm looking for confirmation that my thinking is right about interpreting @tstamp2 values (e.g. 2m+2) when the time signature changes between the location of the element indicating @tstamp and the 2nd next measure.
> According to the guidelines 'the timestamp (@tstamp) of a musical event is calculated in relation to the meter of the *current* measure and resembles the so-called ‘beat’.' About @tstamp: '[@tstamp2] is expressed using the same logic as described above'. (see http://music-encoding.org/documentation/guidelines2013/cmn#cmnTstamp )
> I haven't found any explicit statement how to understand *current* measure in case of @tstamp2. Strictly speaking, *current* measure is the measure where the element with the @tstamp2 is located. However intuitively, all encountered measures should be considered with their effective time signature, therefore if there are three measures, the first in 2/4, the second in 5/8 and the third is 2/4, then 2m+1 should indicate the first quarter note in the last measure (as opposed to the 5th eights note in the second measure).
> Thank you
> Zoltan Komives
> _______________________________________________
> 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