[MEI-L] Reconstructed parts

Eleanor Selfridge-Field esfield at stanford.edu
Wed Jul 24 02:25:09 CEST 2013

Hi, All,

Micah is addressing an important need of musicologists, and it touches on an area that is probably irrelevant to TEI.  I'm only perplexed about the word "choice".  This is not about differing opinions. It could incur in a situation in which the editor proposes two or more realizations of lost material.  (an important court case in France recently addressed this subject.  The new material was understood to constitute new authorship, in contrast to the 1725 music otherwise present.) 

To be clear, one would have to say "proposed completion/realization." or something similar.  Basso continuo realizations are similarly editorial creations.  In both cases the added material is normally typeset in small notes, so unambiguous tags may do double duty in the future.

Best regards,

Eleanor Selfridge- Field
esfield at stanford.edu

<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"

/* Style Definitions */p.MsoNormal, p.MsoAutoSig, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal	{margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt;}@page WordSection1	{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;	margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;	mso-header-margin:36.0pt;	mso-footer-margin:36.0pt;	mso-paper-source:0;}div.WordSection1	{page:WordSection1;}

Eleanor Selfridge-Field

Consulting Professor, Music (and, by courtesy, Symbolic Systems)

Braun Music Center #129

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305-3076, USA



----- Original Message -----
From: Raffaele Viglianti <raffaeleviglianti at gmail.com>
To: Music Encoding Initiative <mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de>
Sent: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [MEI-L] Reconstructed parts

Hi Micah,

The debate around <choice> seems to keep going :) As it is defined now,
<choice> only deals with editorial "clarifications" of some text on a
source, either by correction, regularization, expansion.
This is in line with the TEI use of <choice> and I think it should stay
like this.

Nonetheless, there seems to be a need for a more generic "alternative"
element, and it might be worth talking about this more and perhaps look at
TEI's <alt/> (which, btw, is not widely used as far as I know)

For your case, I'd suggest to more simply make full use of <supplied> and
its attributes.

<staff n="1"/> <!-- existing staff from sources -->
<supplied reason="lost" resp="#analyst1">
 <staff n="2"/>
<supplied reason="lost" resp="#analyst2">
 <staff n="2"/>

This encodes strongly, as it were, that there are two different opinions
because of supplied/@resp. And it encodes weakly that they are exclusive
because of staff/@n. I wish there were a way to encode the exclusivity more
strongly, but I don't think there's a way of doing so without tag abuse at
the moment.

Hope this helps,

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Micah Walter <mwalter at haverford.edu> wrote:

> Hello, folks,
> I have a question about encoding reconstructed parts. The project I'm
> working on contains complete works that are missing entire parts, as two of
> the parts are contained in a second partbook that is now lost.
> Different reconstructions are of course possible, and so I'd like to use
> the <choice> tag. Is the following, then, a reasonable encoding?
> <choice>
> <orig>
> <damage/>
> </orig>
> <add>
> <supplied>
> <!-- one possible reconstruction -->
> </supplied>
> </add>
> <add>
> <supplied>
> <!-- another possible reconstruction -->
> </supplied>
> </add>
> </choice>
> Thanks,
> Micah Walter
> _______________________________________________
> 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