Re: Next steps

Hi James,

I'm sorry, but we did in fact discuss next steps at the meeting and there
was a slide devoted to this. Let me reproduce these steps here:

- apply course corrections based on feedback from meeting
- create more MNX examples
- create and approve roadmap document (with proposed timetables)
- establish "beachhead" specs for MNX(cwmn) elements, style properties
- begin reference implementations
- continue open design discussion of MNX(graphics+time) in background

In the wake of the meeting, the chairs are going to confer and set the
agenda for the next phase of work, but this is what we said in Frankfurt.

Concerning the last point: I do expect to do some work in the next week or
two to provide a rough outline of a graphics+time approach that is not tied
to CWMN in any way, as a guidepost on how we might proceed. Given the
amount of verbiage expended in this group on discussing abstract terms (and
the inevitable differences in opinion on their meaning) I think that
concrete proposals form the best basis for further work on this topic. We
can then talk about how these proposals do or do not serve the interests
and use cases we've identified.

Finally, about GitHub: we already have a public repository for MNX. I
expect that the chairs will open up it for filing of issues soon and issue
some guidelines. Most W3C groups allow anyone to file issues or make pull
requests, but ultimately it's up to the spec editors or chairs to accept or
reject these once everyone has made their points.

Best,


.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
Founder
Noteflight LLC

49R Day Street
Somerville MA 02144
USA

"Bring music to life"
www.noteflight.com

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 12:16 PM, James Ingram <j.ingram@netcologne.de>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Great to see everyone at the face-to-face yesterday.
>
> I'd specially like to thank Steinberg for sponsoring the event, and Joe
> and the rest of the chair for all the work they are putting into this.
>
> We didn't really discuss how best to move this project forward. The email
> exchanges before the event became quite chaotic (!), so I'd like to suggest
> that we soon find a better way to organize our on-line thoughts.
> My feeling is that we need to focus on concrete issues by nailing them
> down in a public GitHub repository. Is that possible now? If not, could an
> appropriate repository be created, with instructions as to contribution
> rules?
>
> The first issue I'd raise is the one I spoke about at the end of
> yesterday's meeting: Separation of graphic and temporal meaning in event
> symbols. Maybe we first need to define what we mean by "music notation" and
> "event symbol". Those could be issues too.
>
> All the best,
> James
> --
> https://github.com/notator
> http://james-ingram-act-two.de
>