Re: The Proposed Charter Update

Thanks, Michael for this response.

I'll be voting in favour of the new Charter as currently proposed:

https://www.w3.org/community/music-notation/wiki/Proposed_Charter_Update.

Three clarifications:

As a result of the discussions on GitHub, I no longer think that MNX is 
going to /replace /the native formats of long-established music notation 
applications. MNX is going to be a free, open-source description of CWMN 
that is /independent of/ proprietary formats.

The commitment in paragraph 1 is to a continuation of support for both 
MusicXML and SMuFL. It will be for the authors of applications that 
currently use MusicXML to decide whether or not to support MNX. That's 
something that should be encouraged because, as I said before: The 
simpler exchange of information between the implementations that 
currently use MusicXML should increase turnover, and so be of benefit to 
the industry as a whole.

I'm a little disappointed that my paragraph 4 about non-CWMN notations 
didn't make it into the Proposed Charter this time, but note that this 
does not exclude it from future revisions.

All the best,
James Ingram


Am 30.11.2021 um 23:01 schrieb Michael Good:
> Thank you for these proposals, James. I have incorporated both of your 
> proposals for paragraph 2, but not the proposals for paragraphs 1 and 4.
>
> As Daniel has stated in the MNX GitHub issues, it has never been a 
> goal for MNX to replace file formats used by existing long-established 
> music notation applications. That goal is neither desirable nor 
> feasible. MNX handles new use cases that MusicXML does not, but this 
> is not one of them.
>
> We do need to balance MNX development with MusicXML and SMuFL 
> maintenance, and have MNX make as much use of existing MusicXML and 
> SMuFL technology as possible. I think your proposals for paragraph 2 
> captures this better than the original wording, but I think the 
> paragraph 1 wording is still important to retain for clarifying the 
> work of the group.
>
> With the proposed paragraph 4, W3C group charters typically get 
> revised every few years. Specifics about longer-term ideas are 
> generally not included. Since the charter refers to “notated music” we 
> are not excluding other notations from our overall scope. Any work on 
> non-Western notations will follow the completion of MNX 1.0. That 
> would be a good time to take stock of future projects for the group, 
> and update the charter if needed.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael Good
> VP of MusicXML Technologies
> MakeMusic, Inc.
>
>
>> On Nov 23, 2021, at 6:35 AM, James Ingram <j.ingram@netcologne.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This posting is in response to the call for comment in
>> https://www.w3.org/community/music-notation/2021/11/22/co-chair-meeting-november-22-2021/
>>
>> The Proposed Charter is at
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/community/music-notation/wiki/Proposed_Charter_Update
>>
>> Below is a *Summary* of how I'd formulate the /Scope of Work/, but 
>> first, here are the changes with their reasons:
>>
>> In /Scope of Work/, paragraph 1, the words
>>
>> > while maximizing the existing investment in implementations of the 
>> existing MusicXML and SMuFL specifications
>>
>> should simply be deleted.
>>
>> MNX is going to be a free, open-source replacement for all the 
>> proprietary formats currently used by standard music notation editing 
>> applications.
>> This means that interface formats like MusicXML will no longer be 
>> required. The simpler exchange of information between the 
>> implementations that currently use MusicXML should increase turnover, 
>> and so be of benefit to the industry as a whole. Such implementations 
>> should therefore be encouraged to migrate to MNX.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> In paragraph 2, the words
>>
>> > The group is proposing the development...
>>
>> should be replaced by the fact:
>>
>> "The group is developing..."
>>
>> and the words
>>
>> > MNX is designed to leverage as much as possible of the existing 
>> MusicXML schema.
>>
>> should be replaced by the following (or equivalent):
>>
>> "A primary design goal for MNX is ease of migration from MusicXML."
>>
>> ...
>>
>> I would like to add a 4th paragraph that mentions the group's longer 
>> term vision. (We are at the W3C here.):
>>
>> "In the longer term, the group envisions the development of 
>> specifications dealing with notations other than Common Western Music 
>> Notation, for example Arabic or Asian notations."
>>
>> *************************************************************************
>>
>> *Summary*. Here's how the /Scope of Work/ would then read:
>>
>>
>> "The Community Group documents, maintains and updates the MusicXML 
>> and SMuFL (Standard Music Font Layout) specifications. The goals are 
>> to evolve the specifications to handle a broader set of use cases and 
>> technologies, including use of music notation on the web.
>>
>> The group is developing a new specification to embody this broader 
>> set of use cases and technologies, under the working title of MNX. 
>> The MNX specification is 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. A primary design 
>> goal for MNX is ease of migration from MusicXML.
>>
>> The group is proposing the development of an additional new 
>> specification to provide a standard, machine-readable source of 
>> musical instrument data. This data includes information both for the 
>> display and playback of music notation that is specific to each 
>> different instrument.
>>
>> In the longer term, the group envisions the development of 
>> specifications dealing with notations other than Common Western Music 
>> Notation, for example Arabic or Asian notations."
>>
>>
>> All the best
>> James Ingram
>> -- 
>>
>> https://james-ingram-act-two.de
>> https://github.com/notator
>>
>
-- 
email signature

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