Re: GitHub repositories proposal

Joe,

Thanks for the reply. The issues I'll be raising will usually be 
specifically about GMNX. When that's the case, I'll put GMNX in the title.

My own feeling is that the specific inclusion of GMNX in the charter [1] 
means that we have agreed that it is a feasible objective, separate from 
both the MNX container and CWMNX objectives.

> I don't think you've ever been asked to confine your contributions to 
> one single issue. What the chairs have asked for, is that you confine 
> your proposals for basing MNX on SVG+MIDI to a single issue, which is 
> #25. There's no reason you can't contribute elsewhere as long as we're 
> all staying within the agreed bounds of the charter.
I am /not/ proposing that MNX be based on SVG+MIDI, MNX is a container 
format that is part of the eponymous set of standards.

What I /am/ proposing is that GMNX should consist of SVG with embedded 
temporal info. There have been no other proposals that come anywhere 
near meeting the GMNX objectives described in the charter, so I think we 
should move on to discussing that particular solution in more detail. 
Hence my request for a separate repository.

All the best,
James

[1] https://www.w3.org/community/music-notation/wiki/Revised_Group_Charter
Here's how the charter defines MNX, CWMNX and GMNX:
>
>   * The MNX container format, which can describe and relate an
>     arbitrary number of components and documents which collectively
>     describe a notated work as a whole.
>   * The CWMNX format (working title), designed to represent Common
>     Western Music Notation in a tightly specified, semantic fashion in
>     order to deliver a high degree of interoperability between a broad
>     range of applications that require such a representation. CWMNX is
>     designed to leverage as much as possible of the existing MusicXML
>     schema.
>   * The GMNX format (working title), designed to represent
>     instantiations of scores in terms of specific visual, performance
>     and audio content and a set of relationships between these facets.
>     GMNX aims to supply a high degree of interoperability to
>     applications that do not depend on particular notational systems
>     or their semantics.
>



Am 01.09.2017 um 16:45 schrieb Joe Berkovitz:
> James,
>
> For MNX, the co-chairs did consider this question. We concluded that 
> we should keep all the MNX content together in one repo for the time 
> being, particularly so that we can unify issue handling. Our feeling 
> is that many issues are likely to cross boundaries, especially in the 
> early stages.
>
> Note that we have a set of GitHub labels for identifying issues that 
> belong to one or more of the MNX areas. Contributors don't need to use 
> them, but they are there. The chairs will eventually label an issue if 
> a specific label is merited.
>
> One final point: I don't think you've ever been asked to confine your 
> contributions to one single issue. What the chairs have asked for, is 
> that you confine your proposals for basing MNX on SVG+MIDI to a single 
> issue, which is #25. There's no reason you can't contribute elsewhere 
> as long as we're all staying within the agreed bounds of the charter.
>
> Best,
>
>
> .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>
> Joe Berkovitz
> Founder
> Noteflight LLC
>
> 49R Day Street
> Somerville MA 02144
> USA
>
> "Bring music to life"
> www.noteflight.com <http://www.noteflight.com>
>
> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Jeremy Sawruk <jeremy.sawruk@gmail.com 
> <mailto:jeremy.sawruk@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I respectfully disagree with this proposal based on the
>     assumptions that James has made. While I agree that there may be a
>     need for separate Github repos (and therefore separate issue
>     trackers), I do not agree with how he has selected which projects
>     should have Github repos.
>
>     Presently, the CG has three Github repos:
>     - SMuFL: https://github.com/w3c/smufl <https://github.com/w3c/smufl>
>     - MusicXML: https://github.com/w3c/musicxml
>     <https://github.com/w3c/musicxml>
>     - MNX: https://github.com/w3c/mnx <https://github.com/w3c/mnx>
>
>     MusicXML remains part of the CG's agenda at least until 3.1 is
>     finalized (and perhaps beyond until MNX is ready for an initial
>     release, but that's not my decision). The "disagreement as to
>     whether MusicXML can really be finalized" is just simply
>     discussion about the state of MusicXML 3.1. From my point of view,
>     there is no disagreement, only discussion to ensure that MusicXML
>     3.1 is released when it is ready. I personally don't see any
>     blocking issues for MusicXML 3.1, but others may, and it won't be
>     released until there is a group consensus.
>
>     Regarding separate Github repos for MNX, CWMNX, and GMNX, I think
>     that we might eventually need separate repos for CWMNX and GMNX,
>     but I think it would lead to too much fragmentation if done now. I
>     personally want to see MNX released, and I believe that in order
>     to do that, the CG as a whole needs to focus and dedicate
>     resources towards that goal. Having so many areas of discussion
>     dilutes that focus, and makes achieving that goal harder and
>     requires more time.
>
>     My recommendation is to keep all of the MNX variants together
>     until there is enough traction to create a separate repo for each.
>     It's relatively easy to move from one repo to multiple, but it's
>     always more difficult to manage multiple repos. We already have
>     three, and I personally don't yet see the value of expanding this
>     to five. Having five repos would make it more difficult for
>     members to know where to file issues, and would be more difficult
>     for our chair to manage.
>
>     As far as your issue "that relates to GMNX (synchronization with
>     audio files) without having to think about whether that issue also
>     relates to CWMNX", I believe this issue relates to both CWMNX and
>     GMNX, so it should continue to be an MNX issue.
>
>     On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 4:00 AM, James Ingram
>     <j.ingram@netcologne.de <mailto:j.ingram@netcologne.de>> wrote:
>
>         Hi all,
>
>         This CG now has three (maybe four) completely independent
>         topics on the agenda: MNX, CWMNX, GMNX and (to judge by the
>         present MusicXML thread) maybe MusicXML as well. There seems
>         to be some disagreement as to whether MusicXML can really be
>         finalized.
>
>         These three (or four) topics each have their own use-cases.
>         None of them depends, for their successful development, on the
>         successful development of any of the others.
>
>         So I'd like to propose that each of them be given its own
>         repository on GitHub. I think that would lead to less
>         confusing, more concentrated discussions and better
>         documentation of the issues. It would be quite easy to create
>         cross-repository issue links, should that ever be necessary.
>
>         For example, I'd like to discuss an issue that relates to GMNX
>         (synchronization with audio files) without having to think
>         about whether that issue also relates to CWMNX. If it does
>         relate to CWMNX, then someone should also raise it in the
>         CWMNX repository. The discussions in the different
>         repositories would have little to do with each other, and be
>         very different in each case.
>
>         If the chair doesn't want to create extra repositories, maybe
>         you could say how I should proceed. As far as I know, I'm
>         currently only supposed to contribute to mnx#25 ("GMNX should
>         embed elements in an SVG file"), and that issue is already
>         overloaded with sub-issues.
>
>         all the best,
>         James
>
>         p.s. I have two other responses to the Charter Vote Comments,
>         but they can wait.
>         j
>
>
>


-- 
http://james-ingram-act-two.de
https://github.com/notator

Received on Friday, 1 September 2017 16:48:17 UTC