Re: Notations in Scope

Hi Joe, all,

> You are saying (I think) we should cover any visual graphic that 
> describes timed musical events, but have placed no constraints on what 
> those events are, or how the time dimension itself is treated.
Correct.
> What is the advantage of adopting this definition?
The advantage of arriving at a proper definition is that it immediately 
gets us into accepted standards territory. On the web, space maps to 
SVG, time maps to MIDI.

I think my original definition
> A Performable Notation is one in which an instant of performed time 
> maps to one or more symbols in the graphic.
could be improved:

You use the word "event"...

Music symbols are /spatially extended/ 2-dimensional objects. They have 
both width and height (otherwise you can't see them).
Similarly, the related performed event is /temporally extended/ 
(otherwise you can't hear it). Human perception of /events/ actually 
begins at around 2ms. This is the border between low level audio (timbre 
etc.) and events that can be combined to create musical structures. If a 
perceivable event can be symbolised, then we can begin to talk about 
writing and composition.

So we should not really be talking about instants. A possible refinement 
could be

"A Performable Notation is one in which a performed event maps to one or 
more graphic objects in the score."

But this says nothing about how complex the "event" is. In fact, an 
event can consist of several synchronous events. So maybe the following 
would be better:

*"A Performable Notation is one in which one or more synchronous events 
can be mapped to one or more graphic objects in the score."*

Note that nothing is said about the alignment of the graphic objects. In 
CWMN, the symbols are aligned vertically of course, but that's a special 
case.

Also, nothing is said about the relative complexities of the event(s) 
and the graphic(s).

Suggestions for improvements to this definition would be much appreciated.

> Furthermore, it's not clear that "the graphic" in your definition 
> always exists. An encoding should be able to represent musical data in 
> accepted types like CMN without having to refer to any visual 
> instantiation. This definition would burden all encoders with having 
> to encode a visual aspect that they in many cases do not need or want.
I think you may be confusing the (humanly readable, perceptible) 
instantiations of the score (on screen or paper, and in performed time) 
with the encoding of it in a computer file. I see no point in having an 
encoding for a music notation that cannot be instantiated.
There are, of course, lots of uses for the (machine-readable) encoding 
in a computer file. The encoding may, of course, contain lots of other 
data (meta-data etc.) that is not used in instantiations of the score.

> What is the advantage of adopting this definition? If the answer is, 
> "it means we include all notated musical works in the past and 
> future", then my view is that you should focus on a separate SVG-based 
> solution that appeals to this breadth of visual possibilities. Such a 
> solution will be completely general, but not very useful to those of 
> us who need to work with semantic musical data in core notational idioms.

On 9th April, I posted a proposal for an Architecture within which CWMN 
could coexist peacefully with other notations, and be able to develop 
independently of those notations. That was very soon after the 
face-to-face on 8th April, so its not surprising that I got no response.
Getting the Global Architecture right is the key to enabling the 
developers of CWMN to do what they like without hindering the 
development of other notations (and/vice versa/).
Its a bit like defining an abstract base class in some computer language.
However, I think it would be better to discuss the Global Architecture 
in a separate thread.

I have to admit that the word "semantic" always confuses me. Can you 
explain what you mean there?
For me "semantics" have to do with human perception and the way human 
brains extract "meaning" from the world. That is really out of scope 
here, since we are only talking to machines. We are trying to create 
machine-readable standards. I think the word "semantics" should be 
banned from the CG's official documents.

It will be up to the /composers/ and /performers/ to use the standards 
we create to create poetry.

All the best,
James
-- 
http://james-ingram-act-two.de
https://github.com/notator


Am 13.04.2016 um 23:13 schrieb Joe Berkovitz:
> Hi James,
>
> I moved your definition to a new section called "Meta Notation" that 
> asks about these kinds of abstract definitions of notation. It 
> includes (with attribution) the one you just proposed. I do not think 
> we are ready to say what notations are or are not in scope yet and so 
> I took out the assertion that all such Notations are in scope. That's 
> something we can all discuss.
>
> I think the proposed definition raises some very big questions about 
> what notation is. That's great, but I am not sure that the answers -- 
> if they are available -- will take us to a useful place. The 
> definition seems so broad as to include literally anything. You are 
> saying (I think) we should cover any visual graphic that describes 
> timed musical events, but have placed no constraints on what those 
> events are, or how the time dimension itself is treated.
>
> Furthermore, it's not clear that "the graphic" in your definition 
> always exists. An encoding should be able to represent musical data in 
> accepted types like CMN without having to refer to any visual 
> instantiation. This definition would burden all encoders with having 
> to encode a visual aspect that they in many cases do not need or want.
>
> What is the advantage of adopting this definition? If the answer is, 
> "it means we include all notated musical works in the past and 
> future", then my view is that you should focus on a separate SVG-based 
> solution that appeals to this breadth of visual possibilities. Such a 
> solution will be completely general, but not very useful to those of 
> us who need to work with semantic musical data in core notational idioms.
>
> Best,
>
> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>
> Joe Berkovitz
> President
> Noteflight LLC
>
> +1 978 314 6271
>
> 49R Day Street
> Somerville MA 02144
> USA
>
> "Bring music to life"
> www.noteflight.com <http://www.noteflight.com>
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:01 PM, James Ingram <j.ingram@netcologne.de 
> <mailto:j.ingram@netcologne.de>> wrote:
>
>     Hi All,
>
>     The edit I just made to the Music Notation Use Cases document
>     proposes that all Performable Notations should be in scope.
>     A Performable Notation is one in which an instant of performed
>     time maps to one or more symbols in the graphic.
>
>     Please discuss. Thanks.
>
>     all the best,
>     James
>     -- 
>     http://james-ingram-act-two.de
>     https://github.com/notator
>
>