[MEI-L] <instrumentation> within <source>?

[Axel Teich Geertinger]

Hi Perry

Sorry for the long response time, but I was hoping for others to step in first since we have had some discussion about this already. I am in favor of both changes. The latter - allowing <perfMedium> in <source> - would make it possible to avoid listing instruments at work or expression level which are not part of the general instrumentation of that expression, a piano for instance, if a piano reduction exists of an orchestral work. So instead of

<source xml:id="source1">
   <!-- full score -->
</source>

<source xml:id="source2">
   <!-- piano score -->
</source>

<expression>
   <perfMedium>
      <instrumentation>
         <instrVoice source="source1">Violino 1</instrVoice>
         <instrVoice source="source1">Violino 2</instrVoice>
         ...
         <instrVoice source="source2">Pianoforte</instrVoice>
      </instrumentation>
   </perfMedium>
</expression>

we could do:

<source xml:id="source1">
   <!-- full score -->
</source>

<source xml:id="source2">
   <!-- piano score -->
   <perfMedium>
      <instrumentation>
         <instrVoice>Pianoforte</instrVoice>
      </instrumentation>
   </perfMedium>
</source>

<expression>
   <perfMedium>
      <instrumentation>
         <instrVoice>Violino 1</instrVoice>
         <instrVoice>Violino 2</instrVoice>
         ...
      </instrumentation>
   </perfMedium>
</expression>

where the instrumentation in source1 could be either duplicated from <expression> or, if not indicated, understood as inherited from <expression>. The soon-to-be-established Cataloging Interest Group could discuss a recommended practice for this type of information.

Best,
Axel


Fra: mei-l [mailto:mei-l-bounces at lists.uni-paderborn.de] På vegne af Roland, Perry D. (pdr4h)
Sendt: 2. marts 2015 17:43
Til: mei-l at lists.uni-paderborn.de
Emne: [MEI-L] <instrumentation> within <source>?


There has recently been some discussion on mei-devel about the markup of instrumentation/performance medium information.  To deal with missing, incomplete, or contradictory info about instrumentation at the work level (the only place this info is currently permitted), the current proposal is to make <instrumentation> and its sub-elements (instrVoice, instrVoiceGrp and ensemble) members of att.edit.  This will provide @cert, @evidence, @resp, and @source.

The second part of the effort, which may be slightly more controversial, centers on allowing <perfMedium> to occur not just within <work>, but also at the manifestation level; that is, within <source>.  Currently, <perfMedium> is allowed within <expression>, but not <source> in an effort to encourage the use of FRBR entities and to make a clear separation between expression and manifestation data.  But, a compelling case can be made that if <perfMedium> were allowed within <source>, then <expression> could take on more of a grouping role in those cases where there are multiple manifestations of what is essentially the same expression, for instance, when there's a short score/sketch, a piano reduction (intended for rehearsal) and a full score of a symphonic work.  It may be more productive to allow each of these sources to carry instrumentation info and use <expression> to group them as one *version of the work* as opposed to a later revision than to force instrumentation to always be recorded at the expression level, resulting in many cases in a one-to-one relationship between <source> and <expression> without the possibility of grouping at a higher level.

I'm inclined to make this latter change, but would like to hear from others before moving ahead.

--
p.

__________________________
Perry Roland
Music Library
University of Virginia
P. O. Box 400175
Charlottesville, VA 22904
434-982-2702 (w)
pdr4h (at) virginia (dot) edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uni-paderborn.de/pipermail/mei-l/attachments/20150313/a0f7fe67/attachment.html>