- From: Erik Ronström <erik@ompom.se>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:39:15 +0200
- To: public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org
Hello, Interesting discussion! Bob Hamblok wrote: > In our opinion, we believe this CG has a fundamentaly other scope than what MEI tries to do. We have the need for a specification that can be improved fast, which is lightweight but concise and semantically correct. A specification that is easy to read, easy to convert to other formats (json) and is used in applications with a wide support. And most importantly … it should be unambiguous and strict. > > Therefor MusicXML as a standard is, in our opinion, definitely the optimal starting point. [...] This may well be true, but I would like to raise the question of extendability: is it possible to have a music specification that can represent music on a more general level, rather than ”only” a digital version of sheet music? I acknowledge that this workgroup is indeed about music notation, but in my opinion, one of the biggest problems with MusicXML is that it is biased towards the graphical aspects of music. Imagine an application combining sheet music with audio files, video, chord sheets, piano rolls, lyrics written as plain text etc. Would it be possible to build such an app on a format like MusicXML? Perhaps, but at least not very easily. I haven’t had much experience of MIE, but as much as I’ve looked into it, it would be a much better choice, with its more flexible architecture. (Of course, one might argue that representing audio and video falls outside what should be covered by a music *notation* model, but in that case, it would still be beneficial if the model was possible to extend in a good way) Regards Erik
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 07:40:37 UTC