Re: MNX proposal §1.2

Hi Joe,

Sorry I was out of line.  The scope of the project, and it's (as perceived
by me) web-centricity, has raised some anxiety.  I will keep an open mind.

Thanks.
Matt


.mjb


On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Joe Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com> wrote:

> Hi Matt,
>
> Certainly, taking on too much is always a danger worth watching out for
> and I think that some skepticism is completely warranted. There should be a
> good reason why everything is there. And I'm sure I have made some
> mistakes, so I expect (even hope) that we will prune features from MNX in
> the long run.
>
> But... "racing off a cliff"? I think not. Let me at least say a few things
> in defense of the points you critiqued -- and I hope to speak more in
> Frankfurt.
>
> - A key element of MNX is profiles, which will identify exactly which
> features in the spec are required to be used in a given context. This is a
> very important tool for keeping the spec manageable. SVG and
> files-on-the-side are, to me, quite likely to be optional features that are
> not part of the standard MNX profile.
>
> - MNX is not based on anyone's application back end, much less mine. There
> is no intent that MNX act as a back end of music editors. It is truly an
> attempt to answer the needs of bona fide use cases, including exchange. But
> the fact is that at this juncture, the notation community needs more than
> an exchange format, particularly the publishing side.
>
> - The clear separation of semantic, appearance and interpretation layers
> by use of CSS makes it much easier for applications to determine where
> musical content ends and visual/performance data begins. In many cases, the
> latter layers may not even be imported/exported.
>
> - The MNX proposal supports only a fraction of the use cases that we
> identified, and I do not think it should support them all.
>
> - Many of the most complex features of MusicXML's core are simplified by
> MNX. There is a serious attempt here to make the "unwieldiness quotient" go
> down, not up.
>
> Anyway, I'm not trying to persuade you at this stage, just offering a
> response and looking forward to a spirited discussion!
>
> Best,
>
> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>
> Joe Berkovitz
> Founder
> Noteflight LLC
>
> 49R Day Street
> Somerville MA 02144
> USA
>
> "Bring music to life"
> www.noteflight.com
>
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Matthew James Briggs <
> matthew.james.briggs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Michael's point is a good one.  However, my main concern with MNX, based
>> on the discussion thread and proposal, is that it is trying to do too
>> much.  I think one of the problems with MusicXML was that it tried to
>> accommodate too many use cases and in so doing became unwieldy to the point
>> that no one could properly implement all of it's features.  I could be
>> wrong, but I don't think there is any application that has ever been
>> created that can use all of MusicXML's features, and this seems to me to be
>> a flaw in the specification.
>>
>> MNX, with it's introduction of SVG, embedded files, files on the side,
>> CSS, etc, appears to be quickly racing off of the edge of the same cliff
>> and I wonder how many applications will jump on board.  It feels a little
>> bit like Joe is describing how his application's backend will work instead
>> of describing a music notation data exchange format.
>>
>> I wonder if Finale, Sibelius, MuseScore, Lilypond and Komp (us), are
>> going to stick with MusicXML or else need to come up with something better
>> suited to exchanging notation data between them.
>>
>> Sorry to be a skeptic, but I might as well signal that I will be playing
>> that role at Messe.  I'm looking forward to meeting all of you nonetheless.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .mjb
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Michael Good <mgood@makemusic.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> You are leaving out the main dish: it is semantic, and not spatial or
>>> temporal.
>>>
>>> I don't see how a computer file could include the main dish. The
>>> semantics are located in the readers' minds, and computers have no access
>>> to minds. Nobody really knowns how and why brains interpret the world in
>>> terms of space and time. Performance practice traditions are an exclusively
>>> *human* undertaking, and are what real music making is all about.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t think what you’ve written has been accurate since at least the
>>> 1950s if not earlier. Today computers and humans perform music together all
>>> the time. Computers have been representing musical semantics for a long
>>> time. There are hundreds of existing music applications that use MusicXML
>>> today to represent musical semantics in a way that can be shared with other
>>> applications. That includes applications that listen to human performers
>>> and communicate with them in semantic terms.
>>>
>>> If you look at the list at http://www.musicxml.com/software/ you will
>>> see a wide range of applications that are used for composing, performing,
>>> teaching, studying, preparing, analyzing, and finding music. The vast
>>> majority of these rely on a semantic representation of music. Many of the
>>> people behind those applications are members of this community group.
>>>
>>> I think we need to understand and value the work of the different
>>> members of this group in order to have productive conversations. If we all
>>> think only of the needs of our particular application and not at all of the
>>> needs of other applications, it will be difficult to make any progress.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Michael Good
>>> VP of MusicXML Technologies
>>> MakeMusic, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>