[mei-neumes-ig] MEI Neumes Module Draft, Version 0.2

Sat Sep 23 14:43:32 CEST 2017

Dear Inga, all,

I hope you have all been having a good time in Halifax! I wish I could be there...

I think I will need some clarification about what you wrote, however, and what was discussed. I can't seem to reconcile the two points that you are making, the first being that it will be a description of all types of notation, and the second being that the visual domain should take priority. It seems to me that the most fundamental difference between the different types of notations *are* their shapes, and so to prioritise the visual domain would necessarily bias it towards being more suitable to some notation types over others.

It's important to recognise that MEI is not a paelaeography description language [1], and that the first priority is to describe the musical content, independent of how it looks. Teasing apart the visual and musical dimensions in notation is not a straightforward task, which is why I think we're all struggling with this (and that's OK!).

So what's the way forward?

Perhaps its useful to think of MEI as less a way of stating absolute truth, and more a way of encoding the critical and interpretative decisions made in the process of capturing the notation. It seems to me that the sticking point is a reluctance to make a statement about musical interpretation, since some notation styles are ambiguous and their exact interpretation has been lost. It's a "known unknown" -- we know that we don't know what it is. I think there are two ways that we can address this.

The first is understanding that the process of encoding is always interpretation, that this will necessarily involve getting it wrong, and that its OK. Should you be asked to make a printed edition of an ambiguous source you would need to make decisions that you know are your own interpretation and not shared by everyone. Putting it into the digital domain does not solve that problem. So I don't think we should shy away from understanding that it's an interpretative process.

From a technical angle, MEI allows you to encode ambiguity through the critical encoding apparatus. sic/corr, app/rdg, unclear, choice, orig/reg -- these are all mechanisms through which one can encode ambiguous interpretations and assign interpretative provenance to them. Should these mechanisms not be suitable, additional methods of signalling an interpreters unease can be defined. These are the mechanisms that allows us to make our interpretations explicit.

My two biggest reservations about prioritising the visual domain are: the level of granularity that is necessary to fully represent the notation, and the difficulty in processing the encodings to look for patterns across a corpus. As Elaine mentioned, the difference between "north" and "northeast" in a particular hand may vary. It also may vary depending on other factors, like the precision with which the notation was being written (is it a quick draft copy, or is it a carefully written copy?). Ineveitably, should we go down this route we will likely be asked to accommodate encodings with the precise angle at which a sign is bent. At this point, MEI becomes a graphical representation format more like SVG, and this brings with it a whole slew of other problems, like visual baselines and units of measurement. (If a symbol is angled 'northeast' but the angle at which the musical content is written on the page is not at 90° from the top/bottom, from where is the angle measured from?)

With greater visual accuracy, musical accuracy (and the ability to search for the same musical patterns across a corpus) diminishes. This is because delegating the musical interpretation outside of MEI means it is up to the implementers of software to create the interpretation when it comes time to understand the musical content. It will make writing software for corpus analysis harder since it will necessarily require deeper understanding of musical interpretation on the part of the developer. Imagine only having textual descriptions, provided by multiple people, of neumes with no pictures, and then being asked to reconstruct the musical content -- I would think this would be a difficult task for even the most seasoned neumes expert! Expecting software developers to do this will lead to less-than-satisfactory results.

I think the issues Elaine raises are precisely why efforts on the new Neumes description format have been biased towards visual descriptions, rather than musical content. I'm not qualified to understand historical descriptions within various corpora, so I will have to defer to others in discussing their significance. From a high level, though, it seems that the issue is with levels of granularity and generalization. 

Granularity deals with using a symbol to describe one, and only one, quality of a symbol; the same thing cannot be used to describe both pitch and duration, for example -- those two dimensions need to be described separately. In the case of an unknown interpretation there should be a way of encoding the presence of a symbol without veering either too far to the interpretative side ("heavy", "strong") or to the visual side ("angled", "wavy"). Doing that without using a broadly acceptable name further complicates that. Is there some other way we can reconcile this? For common music notation, for example, we usually just encode the presence of a 'fermata' without making its performance implications or visual appearance explicit (although we could) [2].

Generalization is about how well one set of descriptors applies across different styles. Are there really no fundamental principles of the notation that would allow for comparison and alignment between OH neumes and Corpus Monodicum neumes? If they are fundamentally incompatible then this is something we need to figure out. If there are (and I suspect there are) then what are they?

-Andrew

[1] MEI can be used in a Paleography context through several other mechanisms. One is the ability to align musical contents with digital images through the 'zone' mechanism, which we've been using in the Cantus Ultimus systems for identifying signs on a page. The second is that SVG can be used in tandem with MEI to provide precise shape descriptions, as demonstrated by the Beethovens Werkstatt project. Making contact sheets of neume shapes (e.g., what you can do here: https://ahankinson.github.io/hartker-neume-table/) is possible with existing MEI mechansims. What is not possible, at the moment, is a method of aligning the musical contents across these corpora.

[2] We can encode:

<note fermata="above" />
<fermata />
<fermata shape="angled" />
<fermata shape="angular" form="inv" />
<fermata dur.ges="256p" />

This, I think, accurately separates out the presence of a sign from its particular shape, orientation, and duration.

> On 23 Sep 2017, at 01:58, Inga Behrendt <inga.behrendt at uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Thomas, dear Elaine,
> 
> we talked today about your suggestions during our Cantus Ultimus-Workshop.
> (1) And it ended up saying that we think that terms like "acuta", "gravis", "punctum" fit to SOME notations, but not to ALL. However, we are trying to find a MEI Neumes Module Schema that covers all different kinds of neume notations. For example, Elsa de Luca, our expert in Old Hispanic Neume Notation, said that she cannot use such names for her signs.
> And we all agreed that - if we want to create a Module Schema that we can use for all nematic notations - than we need to be very careful in the choice of names. So, I think, everybody in the Cantus Ultimus group would underline Andrew´s words from his previous mail:
> 
> "I have been under the impression that building a system built on explicit naming of neumes as elements would not be a good idea, based on critiques I have heard on the existing neume module. The same neume can have many names (across styles or languages) and building a system on neume names makes it more difficult to accurately capture the longer non-standard (i.e., "compound") neumes. Thus the reason for building a system based on shape contour, rather than shape name."
> 
> (2) Andrew mentioned the other point to your questions ("I'm also of the opinion that the current proposal has a significant bias towards the visual component,"). We are in the moment describing the shape of the notation signs rather than giving names. And long discussions let us think in the end that is better not to include the meaning of the neume sign. We just describe the neume shapes. For example, an episema: if it means a longer duration or if it is a modal indication or if it shows a semitone within a descending line..., all of this we know from different works of colleagues, is not encoded. We KNOW of the different meanings. But in order to not determine already now the meaning we rather describe the shape.
> 
> Herzlich
> Inga
> 
> Zitat von "Prof. Dr. Morent" <stefan.morent at uni-tuebingen.de>:
> 
>> I would agree with the idea to encode the logical concept behind neume signs, considering the individual visual appearance as a "font" used by scribes within various traditions over time and space and within these traditions to express individual meaning.
>> 
>> Even if "producta" sounds probably unfamiliar to most chant scholars as to now it has the advantage to have a historical-theoretical background compared to the (modern invention) "tractulus".
>> 
>> I would however be cautious with terms like "longer", "duration" ... perhaps something like "light"/"heavy", "more emphasized", "strong" ... would be more appropriate?
>> 
>> best Stefan
>> 
>> ----- Nachricht von Elaine Stratton Hild <elaine.stratton_hild at uni-wuerzburg.de> ---------
>>      Datum: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:05:37 +0200
>>        Von: Elaine Stratton Hild <elaine.stratton_hild at uni-wuerzburg.de>
>> Antwort an: Neumes Interest Group of the Music Encoding Initiative <mei-neumes-ig at lists.uni-paderborn.de>
>>    Betreff: Re: [mei-neumes-ig] MEI Neumes Module Draft, Version 0.2
>>         An: mei-neumes-ig at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>> 
>>> Thanks so much for your time, Andrew (and all!).  My answers are below, marked with *. 
>>> 
>>> All best wishes,
>>> Elaine
>>>  
>>> 
>>>      
>>>   
>>>   
>>>  Dr. Elaine Stratton Hild
>>>  Corpus monodicum: Die einstimmige Musik des lateinischen Mittelalters    
>>>       Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg
>>> Institut für Musikforschung
>>> Domerschulstraße 13
>>> D-97070 Würzburg            
>>>     
>>> 
>>>>>> Andrew Hankinson <andrew.hankinson at mail.mcgill.ca> 09/20/17 9:24 PM >>>
>>> Thank you, Elaine! This clarifies a few things.
>>> 
>>> "Shape" is a term I borrowed from the process of data modelling to mean two objects which share the same properties and values, but which may be completely different instances of something. Two houses with one door and 10 windows could be said to have the same 'data shape', and it doesn't matter if one is a bungalow and one a skinny three-story Dutch house, and one is called a 'house' and another a 'huis'.
>>> 
>>> In this case, it simply means that two things that have a pitch contour of "up-then-down," for example, must be instances of the same class of things regardless of any particular name or identifier attached to them. The thing is defined by its properties, and not by a name that is given to it.
>>>   
>>>  ***Thank you for the explanation!
>>> 
>>> Perhaps you could clarify a few things about the functioning of your proposed elements. It seems that there are properties of these symbols that are non-exclusive, and that a single symbol can carry with it multiple dimensions of description.
>>> 
>>> As an encoder, when would I choose to use a 'gravis' over a 'puncta' if they can both mean 'lower' pitch? 
>>>   
>>>  ***These terms refer to different signs, different visual forms on the page. A gravis looks different than a punctus. (Gravis looks like \ while punctus looks like a period . In O splendidissima, the first notational sign above the syllable "splen" is an acuta connected to a gravis; two punctus are visible above the syllable "di")  A musicologist encoding the notation can record the basic visual forms with the terms gravis, acuta, punctus, producta. The meanings of these signs will need to encoded separately, because the meanings depend, to some extent, on context of the surrounding signs (which a musicologist can interpret). A punctus can mean "lower than preceding pitch" or it could also be slightly more ambiguous--it could mean "same or lower than the preceding pitch." 
>>>   
>>>   I understand that only puncta can be 'same or lower' but it seems, on the face of it, that there might be some confusion about when to use each. It also seems like there are three signs available to encode the 'same' pitch, two for 'lower', and only one for 'higher.' 
>>>   
>>>  ***When choosing which basic sign to encode, the musicologist will follow the scribe's use of the signs. Yes, you're right, different signs were used to convey the same information about pitch content. Conveying information about pitch content was not the only (or even the most important) aspect of notation for many medieval scribes. They used different forms to show different aspects of performance, and that's why it's important for us to be able to encode both the graphic signs (the visual domain) as well as the meanings we can glean from the scribe's use of the signs (the logical domain).  Returning to O splendidissima, the "lower" pitches the scribe wrote with punctus were probably performed shorter, or "lighter" than the the "lower" pitch recorded with the gravis. A musicologist should be able to add as much of this nuanced performance information that she wants, depending on her understanding of the notation and her desire for detail.
>>>   
>>>   Will this cover the range of pitch movements necessary in the repertoires?
>>>   
>>>  ***We need the options of neutral (or unknown), same, lower, same or lower, higher, same or higher. In some cases, a scribe will modify a sign to give additional information concerning pitch content. For instance, a scribe sometimes wrote a gravis longer, visually--extending down further than usual. (The gravis over "splen" happens to be one example.) The information about melodic interval is still "lower than previous pitch", but the musicologist might want to record the additional visual information (extended) and also record the meaning she attributes to the scribe's modification ("lower than the previous pitch by a third or more").  (In the case of O splendidissima, because the scribe used a staff, we can record absolute pitch levels--the descent of "g" to "e".)
>>> 
>>> Both 'puncta' and 'producta' also seem to have an impact on duration, which I think should be clearly separated from pitch. Is there any way to separate the duration implications out from them? If we remove duration from the meaning of the sign (and encode it in a separate attribute), are 'punctus' and 'productus' effectively the same thing? 
>>>   
>>>  ****We would still differentiate between punctus and producta to reflect the sign the scribe used (for our visual domain). Yes, I think we absolutely should record the duration implications separately, because some scribes used "producta" as the standard sign for "lower" and "same or lower" pitches, while other scribes used "punctus" as the standard and only used "producta" in special situations, to indicate lengthened duration. I think Thomas Weber was considering suggesting the @dur attribute (data.DURATION.neumes) with the values "longer" and "shorter". 
>>> 
>>> Is there a sign for 'same or higher with longer duration'? Is that necessary?
>>>   
>>>  **No, there's no basic sign for that. To show a higher pitch with longer duration, a scribe would add an episema to the acuta, or add a significative letter "t" (tenere) next to the acuta. The proposal from Thomas Weber and me would allow a significative letter element and using the @dur attribute (longer and shorter duration) to record the meaning of the scribe's use of episema and significative letters.
>>> 
>>> Is there a reason the 'neume' element has been replaced with 'ncg' in the supplied encoding?
>>>   
>>>  ***Yes! We are trying to make the Neumes Module revision comfortable for all musicologists. The term neume can mean different things, depending on the context in which it is used, and the musicologist. Neume component grouping is clearly a technical term, specific to the encoding, that will not cause confusion for chant scholars.
>>> 
>>> Cheers!
>>> -Andrew
>>> 
>>>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 16:55, Elaine Stratton Hild <elaine.stratton_hild at uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your work on this.
>>>> 
>>>> I agree completely, Andrew, that the neume names should be able to be included in the encoding, but the encoding should not depend on them. A quick thought concerning your suggestion below… “neume name” (rather than “neume type” would probably be more specific and clearer to musicologists (like me!) using the module.
>>>> 
>>>> Just to clarify… the proposal Thomas Weber and I have put forward does not rely upon neume names. The designations we recommend (“acuta” / “gravis” \ “punctus” . and “producta” _ ) are the earliest historical designations for notational signs, and—most importantly—they are not limited to one notational type. (Perhaps this is along the lines of what you meant with "data shapes", Andrew?)
>>>> 
>>>> They designate basic shapes that themselves convey basic information (acuta = one note with the same or higher pitch; gravis = one note with lower pitch; punctus = one note with same or lower pitch and normal duration; producta = one note with same or lower pitch and longer duration).
>>>> 
>>>> They are especially convenient for encoding because they can be combined to create all the notational signs of all types medieval notation.
>>>> 
>>>> (Small historical detour... For the writer of the 10th century treatise where these terms are first used for musical notation, the signs formed binary oppositions to each other: “Acuta” and “gravis” were drawn from the study of grammar, with the acuta placed over vowels where the voice rose in pitch and the gravis placed with syllables where the voice fell in pitch. “Punctus” and “producta” are symbols drawn from verse analysis: short syllables in Latin were marked with punctus; long syllables were marked with producta.)
>>>> 
>>>> We suggest using these designations (as basic "data shapes"), rather than the tilt attribute, because the basic meaning conveyed by an acuta (the logical domain) remains consistent across all medieval notations, but the nuanced tilt of the sign (the visual domain, whether it’s written “north” or “northeast”, for example) varies with individual scribes.
>>>> 
>>>> Many thanks and all best wishes,
>>>> Elaine
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dr. Elaine Stratton Hild
>>>> Corpus monodicum: Die einstimmige Musik des lateinischen Mittelalters
>>>> Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg
>>>> Institut für Musikforschung
>>>> Domerschulstraße 13
>>>> D-97070 Würzburg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>>>> Andrew Hankinson <andrew.hankinson at mail.mcgill.ca> 09/20/17 4:58 PM >>>
>>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for this, and spending time putting forward some concrete suggestions.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm also of the opinion that the current proposal has a significant bias towards the visual component. I believe this has emerged largely because the exact musical content of some repertoires is unknown, making a system built on a "logical" domain approach to musical description difficult to define. (that is, when all you have a symbol that is angled, and you don't even know what pitch it is, how do you describe it musically?) That said, I think it's worthwhile to try and tug the existing proposal in the direction of addressing and describing the musical content directly.
>>>> 
>>>> I have been under the impression that building a system built on explicit naming of neumes as elements would not be a good idea, based on critiques I have heard on the existing neume module. The same neume can have many names (across styles or languages) and building a system on neume names makes it more difficult to accurately capture the longer non-standard (i.e., "compound") neumes. Thus the reason for building a system based on shape contour, rather than shape name.
>>>> 
>>>> That isn't to say that names are not a valuable thing to encode, but the idea is that these names would be included in a separate taxonomy within the file (or even a separate controlled vocabulary) that might be referenced within an encoding. I think this will go further towards making a general encoding system for all neumed repertoires, instead of narrowing it down to a particular style.
>>>> 
>>>> You might imagine something along the lines of:
>>>> 
>>>> <neume type="#clivis">
>>>> ...
>>>> </neume>
>>>> 
>>>> or
>>>> 
>>>> <neume type="http://example.org/neumevocabulary#clivis">
>>>> ...
>>>> </neume>
>>>> 
>>>> This would let you use your own controlled vocabulary to name things for your own encoding, while maintaining a more general 'data shape' for the musical structures, allowing them to be compared across repertoires.
>>>> 
>>>> -Andrew
>>>> 
>>>>> On 20 Sep 2017, at 15:26, Thomas Weber <thomas.weber at notengrafik.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear group,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Elaine and me looked at both the Hildegard example as well as the "standard" neumes table by Cardine and made an attempt at encoding the signs' properties with better separation of domains. We tried to add more logical domain information to the previously mostly graphical domain info.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Our thesis was that the main distinguishing factor between different use cases of the Neumes module is in how much detail the notation should be described. Many projects right now use the Volpiano font to capture only the melodic contour and potentially connection information. For Corpus monodicum, we want to encode more properties of single staff-bound components, mainly whether a component is an oriscus, quilisma or strophicus. Our understanding is that the Old Hispanic project as well as the Optical Neumes Recognition project need even more detailed information to be encodable.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We came to the conclusion that the problem we still need to solve is better separation of visual and logical domains. Our impression is that the visual domain is of primary importance for both of the named projects. That might be the reason why the current draft seems to mainly focus on the visual domain.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We prepared the following table based on Cardine that outlines our suggested encoding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://cm.notengrafik.com/2017-Graz-Cantus-Newtork/cardine-table/cardine_web.xml
>>>>> 
>>>>> The most obvious addition are sub-elements describing each <nc> as one of the seven basic single pitch signs (four basic signs based on Anonymus Vaticanus: acuta, gravis, punctus, producta; three special signs: quilisma, oriscus, strophicus). We chose to make them elements so that each of those can get its specific set of attributes describing them in more detail, like "extended" for acuta/gravis (understood to indicate larger intervals) or "waves" for quilisma. The idea behind that was to make it clearer which attributes are usable in which contexts, but this could also be done by means of Schematron rules when using attributes instead of elements - which we did in our pre-Graz state of ideas:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://cm.notengrafik.com/2017-Graz-Cantus-Network/presentation/presentation.html#variations
>>>>> http://cm.notengrafik.com/2017-Graz-Cantus-Network/presentation/presentation.html#code-sign
>>>>> 
>>>>> We suggest to represent the "angled" property using the @con attribute, as "angularity" is a property of the connection. Depending on the sign, the logical meaning of this would be to lengthen the component before or after the angled connection. This logical domain info could be recorded using @dur on the proper <nc>.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We picked up Ich's encoding of "O splendidissima" and made a modified version here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://cm.notengrafik.com/2017-Graz-Cantus-Network/O_splindidissima.mei
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here we also tried to illustrate how more detailed visual domain information could added, namely the suggested @tilt. As the tilt is in most cases a consistent scribal idiosyncrasy, this might however better be solved using the tables of signs that Stefan Morent reminded us of recently. There, these idiosyncrasies could be described once for an entire file, source or hand. Johannes (hi to Johannes in CC) suggested that these "standard" patterns of writing might be best put in <scoreDef> and to encode deviations where they occur. These tables could also be useful to document variation among tokens.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We suggest to keep the table problem and how to link between the content and the tables (by semi-standardized names, by project specific naming/numbering schemes or by simple XML IDs, or maybe implicitly by characteristic sequence of single pitch signs) for later discussion, together with other topics like how to represent mi signs and rubrics.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We wish you a fruitful workshop in Halifax, and we are looking forward to hearing about any outcome concerning the neumes module!
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am 07.09.2017 um 14:57 schrieb Ichiro Fujinaga, Prof.:
>>>>>> Here’s what I have for the draft of the proposal for the new MEI Neumes Module schema.
>>>>>> I’ve arbitrarily named it Version 0.2, so that we can refer back to it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For ease of discussion and efficiency, please discuss one issue at a time in separate email threads, e.g., Re: @oriscus.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ichiro
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ==============================
>>>>>> MEI Neumes Module Draft, Version 0.2
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A <neume> element consists of one or more <nc> element(s).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A <nc> (neume component) is a single pitched event, although the exact pitch may not be known.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Attributes for <neume>:
>>>>>> @intm (interval melodic; relative to the previous <neume>) {u|d|s|n|sh|sl} (u = up/high, d = down/low, s = same, n = neutral/unknown, sh = same or higher (but not lower), sl = same or lower (but not higher))
>>>>>> @significative letters
>>>>>> @hispanicTick (type1, type2)
>>>>>> @hook
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Attributes for <nc>:
>>>>>> @pname
>>>>>> @oct
>>>>>> @intm (interval melodic; relative to the previous <neume>) {u|d|s|n|sh|sl} (u = up, d = down, s = same, n = neutral/unknown, sh = same or higher (but not lower), sl = same or lower (but not higher))
>>>>>> @wavy
>>>>>> @significative letters
>>>>>> @curved (anticlockwise, clockwise)
>>>>>> @angular (plain, v-shaped, staircase) (was @angled)
>>>>>> @liquescence
>>>>>> @episema
>>>>>> @extended
>>>>>> @tilt {n|ne|e|se|s|sw|w|ne} (north, northeast, etc.)
>>>>>> @quilisma (2, 3, or 4 curves)
>>>>>> @oriscus (curved, flat, jagged)
>>>>>> @con (gapped, looped) (connection to the previous <nc> within the same <neume>)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Removed from the previous version: @jagged, @flat, @long, @diagonalright, and @hispanicLoop from the <neume> level.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> mei-neumes-ig mailing list
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> mei-neumes-ig at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>>>>>> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-neumes-ig
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> 
>>>>> Notengrafik Berlin GmbH
>>>>> HRB 15007
>>>>> 
>>>>> UstID: DE 289234097
>>>>> Geschäftsführer:
>>>>> Thomas Weber und Werner J. Wolff
>>>>> 
>>>>> fon: +49 30 220661685
>>>>> 
>>>>> Leuschnerdamm 13
>>>>> 10999 Berlin
>>>>> 
>>>>> notengrafik.com
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> mei-neumes-ig mailing list
>>>>> mei-neumes-ig at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>>>>> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-neumes-ig
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mei-neumes-ig mailing list
>>>> mei-neumes-ig at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>>>> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-neumes-ig
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mei-neumes-ig mailing list
>>>> mei-neumes-ig at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>>>> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-neumes-ig
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mei-neumes-ig mailing list
>>> mei-neumes-ig at lists.uni-paderborn.de
>>> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-neumes-ig
>> 
>> ----- Ende der Nachricht von Elaine Stratton Hild <elaine.stratton_hild at uni-wuerzburg.de> -----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mei-neumes-ig mailing list
> mei-neumes-ig at lists.uni-paderborn.de
> https://lists.uni-paderborn.de/mailman/listinfo/mei-neumes-ig