RE: Co-Chair Meeting Minutes: March 5, 2019 [via Music Notation Community Group]

There are several issues covering semantics and presentation, because it is a broad topic.
The OP in https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues/138 covers this, although the resulting discussion has focused on sounding-vs-written-pitch (which would have been more properly covered in https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues/4 ).
https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues/13 covers this very broadly, focusing on methods of implementation, such as whether to use CSS and forming a default layout system.
https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues/57 is also a good one, as it covers how to handle system and page breaks.
https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues/15 covers the default-x issue explicitly.
https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues/121 asks whether multi-measure rests are “semantic” or “presentation”.
https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues/104 and https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues/97 talk about the relationship between “parts” and “staves.”

So… jump in!

--Christina Noel


—

Christina Noel

Lead Engineer of Music Technology

Musicnotes – Sheet Music Anywhere

CNoel@musicnotes.com


[Musicnotes.com]

Musicnotes.com  |  901 Deming Way #100, Madison, WI 53717
From: Jeremy Sawruk [mailto:jeremy.sawruk@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 8:43 AM
To: capella-software Dr. Dominik Hörnel <d.hoernel@capella-software.com>
Cc: Music Notation Community Group <team-community-process@w3.org>; Music Notation Community Group <public-music-notation@w3.org>; Michael Good <mgood@makemusic.com>
Subject: Re: Co-Chair Meeting Minutes: March 5, 2019 [via Music Notation Community Group]

What is the appropriate Github issue to discuss separation of semantic and presentation concerns? Is it https://github.com/w3c/mnx/issues/11 ? I would like to contribute more to this discussion.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:17 AM capella-software Dr. Dominik Hörnel <d.hoernel@capella-software.com<mailto:d.hoernel@capella-software.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

I think there is no disagreement regarding
a) a deep gratitude for having MusicXML
b) our wish to get a robust standard for sharing digital sheet music.

The current MNX draft specification is built on the achievements that have been reached with MusicXML. But it also introduces some new design principles which are very well summarized here:
https://w3c.github.io/mnx/specification/#design-notes


The one I am referring to is about "Separation of semantic concerns from presentation/interpretation concerns". I think it is important to follow it in order to get the robustness we are trying to achieve.

That said I do not mean that CSS must be the way to achieve this goal although it has the advantage to be a well-established standard. CSS could be used to create a uniform look (as mentioned by James), e.g. for coloring all notes in a specified voice, but style could also be attributed to single elements, e.g. for horizontally shifting a note with default-x.

One aspect: Today when importing a MusicXML score which has not been created by your own program, you will probably read in most semantic elements and attributes which are essential to correctly display the score. But you will also ignore or partially ignore some presentation attributes like default-x or interpretation attributes because your layout engine differs from the layout engine of the program that wrote the MusicXML, or because you are interested in displaying the score, but not in playing it (or vice versa). This means that you have to know exactly what attributes are semantic or presentation/interpretation attributes. What I would find appealing is that I do not have to know that when importing a score, but I can simple consider/ignore the "levels" (semantics/presentation/interpretation) which I am interested in or not. For example, when I do not want to colorize notes, I simply ignore the corresponding styling directive, otherwise I am looking for the elements addressed by the styling and apply it to them.

Hope that makes a bit clearer my concern. But maybe, as I am already going into details, it is better to address this topic in a separate issue/request, or talking about it in Frankfurt...

All the best,
Dominik
Am 12.03.2019 um 16:11 schrieb George F. Litterst:
Good morning, everyone.


On Mar 12, 2019, at 6:22 AM, capella-software Dr. Dominik Hörnel <d.hoernel@capella-software.com<mailto:d.hoernel@capella-software.com>> wrote:

Otherwise we might run into getting MusicXML 4 instead of MNX.

Quite frankly, I think that few companies have capitalized on the amazing opportunities available within the MusicXML format. I wish that more content-creation applications exported detailed and accurate MusicXML data.

Personally, I look forward to a robust MusicXML 4.

Regards,
George

George F. Litterst
TimeWarp Technologies
"changing the tempo in music software"
3 Lorimar Lane
Rehoboth, MA 02769-1746
(508) 252-7216 office
(401) 714-2822 mobile
GLitterst@timewarptech.com<mailto:GLitterst@timewarptech.com>
--
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Dr. Dominik Hörnel

capella-software AG
An der Söhrebahn 4
34320 Söhrewald
Tel. +49 (0)5608-3923
Fax. +49 (0)5608-4651
E-Mail: info@capella-software.com<mailto:info@capella-software.com>
Internet: www.capella-software.com<http://www.capella-software.com>
capella ist bei Facebook!<https://www.facebook.com/capella.Musiksoftware>
Erhalten Sie monatlich inside capella<https://www.capella-software.com/newsletter.cfm>: Know-How und Tipps rund um die Programme, Neuigkeiten, Sonderangebote
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Kassel, HRB 15433
Aufsichtsrat: Hans-Ulrich Werner (Vorsitzender)
Vorstand: Dr. Dominik Hörnel