Re: Introducing MNX

I also got the impression from the initial email that Joe reiterates here,
that "The entire point of the MNX container concept and multiple "body
types" is to avoid limiting this project to CWMN."

For example, I could foresee a single MNX container having a "body type"
for neumes and also a "body type" for CWMN of the same musical content
(neumes = original, CWMN  = transcription). This could then be displayed,
for example, as having the neumes display above the CWMN transcription. A
similar application might involve a tablature notation appear
simultaneously with the CWMN (not just guitar tablature). In this respect,
I don't see MNX as being exclusively limited to CWMN.

However, I also agree with Joe that "the initial round of work on MNX
address CWMN, to yield the greatest and most immediate benefits". We
already have a lot of work on CWMN in MusicXML, MEI, etc, that will allow
us to get a working version of MNX together more quickly and provide a
broad range of coverage to a lot of potential MNX users (particularly those
who already use MusicXML or MEI etc.)

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com> wrote:

> James,
>
> You further clarified:
>
> I'm worried that the Chair might be trying to limit the scope of this
>> project to CWMN (as defined by MusicXML). That would be counter-productive
>> and, as far as I'm concerned, defeat the whole purpose of creating a new
>> standard.
>>
>
> Far from it. The entire point of the MNX container concept and multiple
> "body types" is to avoid limiting this project to CWMN.
>
> I do think it's appropriate that the initial round of work on MNX address
> CWMN, to yield the greatest and most immediate benefits given the limited
> resources available to the group. So there is an emphasis on looking at
> CWMN first, but this does nothing to rule out other notational systems.
>
> ...Joe
>