Re: MNX Proposal Overview

Hi Pavel,

Very good question. The plan is for the CG to create a reference
implementation of a MusicXML-to-MNX translator that is freely available and
in conformance with the spec. There is no proposal that this implementation
should use any particular toolset, and I am sure that translators will
ultimately be built using a variety of technologies.

I do not think that we should start from a position that XSLT alone can
perform this translation. This would seriously limit the way that MNX works
and how MNX expresses MusicXML concepts. I say this as someone who has
worked with XSLT and production-rule type systems extensively.

If it somehow turns out that XSLT does suffice, or can play some
appropriate role in translation, of course that's fine. I don't think there
is any bias against using any technology at all that can do the job and
present the algorithm in a clear way. I just don't think we should tie MNX
to any particular migration technology.

Best,

.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
Founder
Noteflight LLC

49R Day Street
Somerville MA 02144
USA

"Bring music to life"
www.noteflight.com

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Pavel Studeny <pavel.studeny@email.cz>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> regarding the compatibility with MusicXML (paragraph 1.3), is it currently
> the plan that the machine translation both from MusicXML to MNX and from
> MNX to MusicXML can be fully done via XSLT? If so, will such an XSLT be
> released together with the MNX standard?
>
> Pavel
>
>
> On 2017-03-20 13:39, Joe Berkovitz wrote:
>
>> Good morning all,
>>
>> I am pleased to share with you an initial draft of a proposal for MNX.
>> The co-chairs hope this will be a useful starting point for the next
>> revision of this group's music notation standard. We look forward to
>> fruitful discussions on this list, as well as in person in Frankfurt for
>> those who are able to join us in April.
>>
>> This has been a long time in preparation -- far too long, I am sure --
>> and I have little by way of excuse, even accounting for the unrelated
>> work on my plate. However, this pause in output has at least given me
>> the chance to think about the ideas presented here.
>>
>> The phrase "starting point" is appropriate, as this document is still in
>> a formative state. While some of the solutions may survive to a later
>> stage of work, right now its purpose is to stimulate discussion by
>> placing something concrete in front of us to examine and debate. Indeed,
>> the co-chairs are not agreed on every element of the proposal, and much
>> less would we expect agreement from the community group at large.
>>
>> To that end, the document also seeks to capture conflicting points of
>> view and alternate possibilities, which are noted as issues called out
>> within the proposal. Rather than using specification language, the
>> proposal relies on examples, to better allow experimentation with
>> various answers to problems.
>>
>> You can find this document at:
>>
>> https://w3c.github.io/mnx/overview/ <https://w3c.github.io/mnx/overview/>
>>
>> The use cases formerly on the wiki have also been moved from the wiki,
>> to better track their concordance with the emerging description of MNX:
>>
>> https://w3c.github.io/mnx/use-cases/
>>
>> After an initial round of mailing list discussion, we will later move to
>> using Github issues to track various points. The github repo is
>> at https://github.com/w3c/mnx/ for version control details.
>>
>> For now, the chairs look forward to some vigorous and positive exchanges
>> of views on the public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org
>> <mailto:public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org> list! Please do use this
>> contributor list for all discussion, in order to affirm that your
>> contributions conform to the W3C IP policy.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>>
>> Joe Berkovitz
>> Founder
>> Noteflight LLC
>>
>> 49R Day Street
>> Somerville MA 02144
>> USA
>>
>> "Bring music to life"
>> www.noteflight.com <http://www.noteflight.com>
>>
>
>