Re: Semantic layout overrides

Yup. I see your point, perhaps this is not a very good example...

.            .       .    .  . ...Joe

Joe Berkovitz
Founder
Noteflight LLC

49R Day Street
Somerville MA 02144
USA

"Bring music to life"
www.noteflight.com

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Jan Rosseel <jan@scora.net> wrote:

> At the risk of ping-ponging:
>
>
>
> If Chopin’s intent was to have different rhythms, then the engravings
> should clearly show that. This would mean that the notes should not align
> to make this clear, and then the whole example becomes a non-example.
>
>
>
> Unless we’re entering in “you-have-to-guess-what-the-composer-meant” or
> “whatever-you-play-is-OK” land, then I see no point in having solution 2.
>
>
>
> JanR
>
>
>
> *From:* Joe Berkovitz [mailto:joe@noteflight.com]
> *Sent:* maandag 10 april 2017 17:09
> *To:* Jan Rosseel <jan@scora.net>
> *Cc:* Hans Vereyken <hans@neoscores.com>; public-music-notation-contrib@
> w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: Semantic layout overrides
>
>
>
> The second one only makes sense if you think (from an editorial
> perspective) that Chopin meant to have completely independent rhythms. So
> my point is that this is something of an editorial decision, and that it is
> possible to represent this in two different ways.
>
>
>
> I think you are siding with Hans's editorial decision regarding correct
> playback, and that's reasonable.  I'm merely showing that there's more than
> one way to interpret the musical text (even if one of them seems unlikely),
> and that MNX should be able to represent both interpretations. After all,
> Chopin could have written quintuplets in both voices. But he didn't.
>
>
>
> So we don't have to argue about how this piece of music should be played.
> That argument would be decided by whoever decides which way this is encoded.
>
>
>
>
> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>
> Joe Berkovitz
> Founder
> Noteflight LLC
>
> 49R Day Street
> Somerville MA 02144
> USA
>
> "Bring music to life"
> www.noteflight.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Jan Rosseel <jan@scora.net> wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
>
>
> I’m going to side with Hans here.
>
>
>
> I’m assuming that the composer’s intent is that these last notes are
> played at the same time – which is the reason why the engraving must put
> them aligned, to exactly suggest/communicate/enforce this.
>
>
>
> Turn it around: if it’s not the intent that they are played together, then
> there is no reason to align the notes, no?
>
>
>
> In that light, the first version gives not only a correct engraving, but
> also allows a correct playback.
>
> The second version only gives a correct graphical representation, but does
> not allow correct playback.
>
>
>
> Ergo, the first version is not only preferable, the second one is just
> dead-wrong.
>
>
>
> I just can’t see the use case you describe for the second version where
> the semantics do not match the engraving. What would be the point in having
> the visual semantics differ from the playback one?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> JanR
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Joe Berkovitz [mailto:joe@noteflight.com]
> *Sent:* maandag 10 april 2017 16:39
> *To:* Hans Vereyken <hans@neoscores.com>
> *Cc:* public-music-notation-contrib@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Semantic layout overrides
>
>
>
> Hi Hans,
>
>
>
> Thanks. I think there's lots more room for discussion here, so I'll try to
> clarify my motivation rather than argue in favor of anything :-)
>
>
>
> The intention of "offset-ref" is *not* to change the semantics at all, but
> to say something about visual presentation only: that a given event should
> be horizontally aligned with some other event. (It feels wrong that this is
> not a style property, and perhaps it should be.)
>
>
>
> Thus the playback of the second version is perfectly well defined by the
> non-visual semantics: the top voice is performed as a dotted eighth plus
> 16th.
>
>
>
> Hope this clarifies things.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>
> Joe Berkovitz
> Founder
> Noteflight LLC
>
> 49R Day Street
> Somerville MA 02144
> USA
>
> "Bring music to life"
> www.noteflight.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Hans Vereyken <hans@neoscores.com> wrote:
>
> First: Big thanks to Michael, Joe and Daniel for all the hard work on
> MusicXML SMuFL and MNX! Doing this, you are fixing problems for developers
> in the world.
>
>
>
> After going through the proposal, I found some things I'd like to discuss,
> this being the first:
>
>
>
> In the proposal there are two examples of how the 'Chopin-esque example of
> a two-voice passage' can be encoded.. But they are not doing the same
> thing, and imho, one of them is preferred..
>
>
>
> In the first example, the semantics represent the notes as they are
> mathematically correct, with an 'appearance' attribute to 'fix' the
> simplified appearance. So the visuals are distorted (for good reasons)
>
> In the second example, the semantics do not represent the notes as they
> are mathematically correct and on top of that, we need an 'offset-ref' to
> 'fix' the simplified appearance. So both the visuals and the semantics are
> distorted.
>
> Try to imagine on how to accurately playback both examples.
>
> I'd like to ditch the 'offset-ref'-method of encoding this. Because it
> enables us to encode things that don't add up in a semantic way. The
> semantics should always represent the notes as they are, but extra 'visual'
> information can override there appearance.
>
>
>
> example 1:
>
> | <measure>
>
> |     <sequence staff="1">
>
> |         <tuplet actual="5/16" normal="1/4" bracket="no" show-number="no">
>
> |             <event value="4" appearance="8*">...</event>
>
> |             <event value="1/16">...</event>
>
> |         </tuplet>
>
> |     </sequence>
>
> |     <sequence staff="1">
>
> |         <tuplet actual="5/16" normal="1/4">
>
> |             <event value="1/16">...</event>
>
> |             <event value="1/16">...</event>
>
> |             <event value="1/16">...</event>
>
> |             <event value="1/16">...</event>
>
> |             <event value="1/16">...</event>
>
> |         </tuplet>
>
> |     </sequence>
>
> | </measure>
>
>
>
> example 2:
>
> | <measure>
>
> |     <sequence staff="1">
>
> |         <event value="8*">...</event>
>
> |         <event value="1/16" offset-ref="n5">...</event>
>
> |     </sequence>
>
> |     <sequence staff="1">
>
> |         <tuplet actual="5/16" normal="1/4">
>
> |             <event value="1/16">...</event>
>
> |             <event value="1/16">...</event>
>
> |             <event value="1/16">...</event>
>
> |             <event value="1/16">...</event>
>
> |             <event id="n5" value="1/16">...</event>
>
> |         </tuplet>
>
> |     </sequence>
>
> | </measure>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Hans Vereyken*
>
> Software engineer | neoScores
>
>
>
> *EMAIL* hans@neoscores.com <XXXXXX@neoscores.com>
>
> *PHONE* +32 (0) 4 <XXXXXX>72 52 75 59
>
>
>
> www.neoscores.com
>
> Facebook  <https://www.facebook.com/neoscores>| Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/neoscores>
>
>
>
> Gustaf  More room for music.
>
>
>
> *VISITOR ADDRESS* Designcenter De Winkelhaak, Lange Winkelhaakstraat 26,
> BE-2060 Antwerp, Belgium
>
> *INVOICING ADDRESS* neoScores NV, Sleutelstraat 13, BE-2550 Kontich,
> Belgium
>
> *VAT* BE 0536.406.040
>
>
>
>
>