[tei-council] notated music

Gabriel Bodard gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Mon Jul 4 12:08:14 EDT 2011

I don't think that #2 and #3 are necessarily the right way around in 
this suggestion, both for the reason that James mentions, and because we 
don't necessarily have a problem of creating a general class of things 
when a specific instance of it already exists. We have a concrete and 
uncontroversial use-case for *tei:notatedMusic, whereas the more general 
container is currently a more woolly concept that could probably stand 
to be discussed and consulted on a bit more widely.

I vote we go ahead with #1 and #3, and think about #2 some more.


On 2011-07-04 16:52, James Cummings wrote:
> On 04/07/11 16:34, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> I don't want to block this, but I do think we might be doing several
>> things at once here. There seem to be three distinct issues:
>> 1. The need for an<externalObject>   (or whatever) which is specifically
>> designated as a transclusion element.
>> 2. The need for a container element whose content elements are deemed to
>> be not choices exactly but somehow parallel renderings in different
>> formats of the same content (an image of notated music, an XML rendering
>> of it, an MP3 file of the music). This contrasts with<choice>, which
>> apparently assumes that one of its content elements will be chosen in
>> any given context.
>> 3. The need for<notatedMusic>, which is semantic sugar for
>> <aboveContainer type="notatedMusic">.
> I agree with this, except for the assumption about choice which
> is tangential here. (For the record, I feel choice is probably
> misnamed because in most processing of it these days we do *not*
> make the choice... we might privilege one over the other, but in
> most renderings I've seen both are available in some way (often
> able to be toggled or present in a tooltip etc.).  This is
> exactly what I usually do with choice.  But none of this matters
> for this discussion.
>> If my understanding above is correct, then I think it would be better to
>> make three separate feature requests, and deal with #2 before #3. Or am
>> I missing something?
> Nope, that sounds correct to me.  My only worry is that #2 is
> likely to cause much discussion whereas in general #3 is fairly
> uncontroversial.
> -James

Dr Gabriel BODARD
(Research Associate in Digital Epigraphy)

Department of Digital Humanities
King's College London
26-29 Drury Lane
London WC2B 5RL

Email: gabriel.bodard at kcl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 1388
Fax: +44 (0)20 7848 2980


More information about the tei-council mailing list