[comp.music] Music Research Digest Vol 2 #30

bradr@SUN.COM (Brad Rubenstein) (12/18/87)

Music-Research Digest       Thu, 17 Dec 87       Volume 2 : Issue  30 

Today's Topics:
         ANSI Standard Music Representation Language Project


*** Send contributions to Music-Research@uk.ac.oxford.prg.sevax
*** Send administrative requests to Music-Research-Request

*** Overseas users should reverse UK addresses and give gateway if necessary
***     e.g.   Music-Research@prg.oxford.ac.uk
***     or     Music-Research%prg.oxford.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Dec 87 13:20:09 EST
From: "Steven R. Newcomb" <cmr!srn@edu.ufl.cis.ufcsv>
Subject: ANSI Standard Music Representation Language Project
To: Music-Research <Music-Research%uk.ac.oxford.prg@uk.ac.ucl.cs.nss>

                      GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE
         X3V1.8M STANDARD MUSIC REPRESENTATION LANGUAGE WORK GROUP
(formerly known as the "Music Information Processing Standards [MIPS] Committee")


Accredited Standards Committee,
X3 -- INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEMS, Operating under the procedures of the American
      National Standards Institute (ANSI).  Technical committee.
V1 -- Text processing: Office and Publishing Systems.  Task Group.
.8 -- Languages for Text Processing and Interchange.  Ad hoc task group.
M  -- Standard Music Representation Language Work Group

Please address inquiries to:
			X3V1.8M Secretariat
			c/o Craig R. Harris 
			The Computer Music Association
			P. O. Box 1634
			San Francisco, California 94101-1634 USA

Charles F. Goldfarb, Chairman              Steven R. Newcomb, Vice Chairman
IBM Almaden Research Laboratory            Center for Music Research
      Laboratory, K84/803                  214 Music School South
650 Harry Road                             Florida State University
San Jose, CA 95120                         Tallahassee, FL 32306-2098
tel: 408/927-2577                          tel: 904/644-5786
                                           uucp: {gould,akgua}!ufcsv!cmr!srn
                                           arpa: cmr!srn@bikini.cis.ufl.edu


The purpose of the ANSI X3V1.8M Standard Music Representation Language Work
Group  is  to create a standard language for music description for adoption
by the appropriate committee operating under the rules  and  procedures  of
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

The X3V1.8M Work Group has been organized to address the following needs:

(1)  Publishers need a way of representing musical examples within a  docu-
     ment  file  (e.g. a music textbook), so that no additional typesetting
     or formatting cost is incurred, and no paste-ups  need  be  done  when
     either the text or music portions of the document are edited.

(2)  Makers of computer-mediated business presentations need  to  integrate
     music  into  their productions, and their productions need to be port-
     able.  Those who create business presentations, especially  those  who
     create  business  presentations of the kind that are now commonly done
     with a PC and a video projector, want to  incorporate  music  in  such
     presentations,  and  they  want  to be in a position to have the music
     reformatted (i.e., rearranged) for different performing resources  "on
     the  fly."   The business of business presentations is a large one and
     it can be expected to  contribute  considerable  demand  for  computer
     music products, and, of course, for music itself.

(3)  Computer assisted instruction which employs music as a reinforcer,  or
     which  actually teaches music, needs to be portable in order to maxim-
     ize its marketability.  The people who create the instruction need  to
     be  able  to  call upon databases of music written by other people who
     wrote or transcribed the music  using  perhaps  incompatible  hardware
     and/or software systems.

(4)  Electronic distributors of information (via videotex, etc.) need to be
     able to include music as part of their product mix.

(5)  It is perhaps too obvious to mention that composers,  performers,  and
     arrangers  would  be  better  able  to  exploit  the  market for their
     creativity, and their market would be better served and have  a  wider
     variety  of  product  to  choose from, given the existence of a lingua
     franca for music--a single representation which is able  to  encompass
     the kind of information which is available from printed music, as well
     as the kind of information (gesture, nuance) which performers  add  in
     any given performance.

(6)  Fill in your own need which would be addressed by a standard  language
     for music representation.

The first meeting was held in July, 1986, in  Half  Moon  Bay,  California.
Meetings  are  held about four times per year, and they are held in various
locations throughout the continental United States (e.g. San Jose, Minneap-
olis, Washington D.C., New York City).  Meetings are four days long.

The Standard Music Representation Language Work Group is known as  X3V1.8M.
X3  is  the Information Processing Systems organization operating under the
procedures of ANSI; V1 is the task group of X3 whose purpose is  to  create
standards  for  text processing in office and publishing systems; X3V1.8 is
an ad hoc task group whose purpose is to create standard languages for text
processing  and  interchange.   In  X3V1  parlance,  the word "text" has an
extremely broad definition which includes all kinds of information.

The ANSI entity to which the X3V1.8M Standard Music Representation Language
Work  Group  will  propose  the  language  it devises is X3V1.8 Ad Hoc Task
Group.  X3V1.8's focus has been on creating a Standard  Generalized  Markup
Language  (SGML)  for  documents, which has turned out to have evolved from
IBM's Generalized Markup Language (GML).  (Dr.  Charles  Goldfarb  led  the
team  which  developed  GML at IBM's Cambridge Research Laboratory in 1969;
today he is a participant in X3V1.8 and serves  as  Chairman  of  X3V1.8M.)
GML is already the format of 90% of the documents published by IBM, and the
IRS's use of GML for tax form preparation is a kind of testimonial  to  its
power  and flexibility.  X3V1.8's cooperating opposite number in the Inter-
national Organization for Standardization (ISO), is known as Technical Com-
mittee  97,  Subcommittee 18, Working Group 8.  SGML became an ISO standard
in October 1986.  The U. S. Department of Defense has approved  SGML  as  a
standard  for  procurement  documents, and the Association of American Pub-
lishers has adopted SGML and has published an application of  the  language
for journals, books, and mathematical formulae.

Both SGML and its forebear, GML, allow a document  to  describe  itself  in
terms  of  its  logical  parts,  or  elements.  For example, the title of a
chapter might appear as:

              <chaptitl>How Dorothy Returned to Oz</chaptitl>

and the first paragraph might appear as:

        <p>When Dorothy returned to her room, there was a tiny cameo lying on
        her dresser.  She picked it up, and it began to glow, while the tiny
        face on it seemed to come to life.</p>


The above instances of elements are the p (paragraph) element and the chap-
titl  (chapter  title) element.  In SGML, each element may have attributes,
or information which may be either required or optional for  that  element,
depending  on  the  declaration  of the element itself in the document type
definition in effect for the document.  The document type  definition  also
makes  explicit  how the elements are related to each other hierarchically,
i.e., which elements can contain which elements.

While all this may seem trivial, the beauty of GML  (or  SGML)  is  that  a
document need not contain any formatting instructions, but all the informa-
tion about a document needed to format it automatically  (by  means  of  an
application  designed to do that) can be placed within the document itself.
Having created a document expressed in  SGML,  the  author  or  editor  can
instruct  a formatting program that, for example, all chapter titles appear
centered on new pages, one third of a page down, and that they are followed
by  a  specified amount of blank space.  Thus, if the document is reprinted
in a journal or anthology with different  formatting  conventions,  no  one
needs  to  edit  the  document  itself,  because the formatter simply works
according to the new rules.  SGML documents can contain normal text charac-
ters,  graphics, images, mathematical formulae, and other specialized nota-
tions.

The task of the X3V1.8M Standard Music Representation Language  Work  Group
is  to  extend  SGML  into  the  realm of music, thus incorporating musical
information into the mainstream of information processing.  In view of  the
fact  that  SGML's facilities are well-adapted to the problem of expressing
how a particular information  set's  internal  relationships  are  set  up,
perhaps  the  best  way of understanding the task confronting X3V1.8M is to
think of it as the creation of an SGML document type definition for musical
works.

X3 convened a study group in 1985, whose purpose was to consider the  scope
and  mission  of  a  proposed  Standard  Music Representation Language Work
Group.  The study group's report is brief; the gist of it is that the stan-
dard  should be able to convey both the specific kinds of information which
performers generate (play THIS pitch THIS loud  at  THIS  millisecond  with
THIS  timbre, etc.), and the specific kinds of information which are needed
by engravers of common music notation  (beam  these  notes  together,  slur
those  notes together, this is an A-sharp half note, etc.).  Another way to
understand the study group's recommendation is to  think  of  the  language
envisioned  by  the  study group as a fusion of (perhaps a superset of) the
information present in a time-tagged MIDI stream with (perhaps  a  superset
of) the information present in a music manuscript.

There  are  three  distinct  ways  in  which  music  information  could  be
represented  within  an SGML document.  The choice will be made by the Work
Group whether to represent music as:

(1)  A pure application of SGML.  This would be desirable for several  rea-
     sons,  including  the  fact  that any textual information in the music
     could be handled in the same way as any other text, and there would be
     the  least  likelihood  of conflict between the formatting conventions
     for the text outside the music portion of a document and  the  format-
     ting  conventions for the text and music inside the music portion.  On
     the other hand, the "pure application" method may prove to be  imprac-
     tical for one reason or another.  This is a technical issue which must
     be decided by the Work Group.

(2)  A character encoded representation  (in  SGML  jargon,  a  specialized
     "data  content notation").  SGML documents might include portions con-
     taining data in a language specific to music.  DARMS,  MUSTRAN,  OPAL,
     or  some  other  coding scheme, or a new coding scheme devised by Work
     Group participants, might form the  basis  for  such  a  data  content
     notation.   One  advantage  of  this  kind of representation (over #3,
     below) is that it can be typed at a non-graphics terminal and  printed
     in the form of a listing by non-graphics printers.

(3)  A binary encoded representation.  SGML documents have the  ability  to
     contain binary data, e.g., photographs.  To a software developer, this
     may appear, at first blush, to be the easiest method of  dealing  with
     the problem of music representation.  It may turn out to be the method
     selected by the Work Group, but  it  is  important  for  applications-
     minded  Work  Group  participants  to  be cognizant of the distinction
     between an X3V1.8M representation and a representation which is inter-
     nal  to  an  application.   The X3V1.8M representation will be for the
     purpose of allowing applications with dissimilar internal  representa-
     tions  to  communicate with one another.  A binary encoded representa-
     tion will not necessarily be more convenient for a  given  application
     to  handle than an SGML application (#1 above) or a data content nota-
     tion (#2 above).

The participants in the X3V1.8M Standard Music Representation Language Work
Group  represent  industrial,  artistic, and academic interests.  Large and
small business concerns, independent software developers, hardware manufac-
turers,  music  publishers, librarians, composers, and academic researchers
have attended and have been represented at X3V1.8M Standard Music Represen-
tation  Language Work Group meetings.  The meetings are open to the public-
-both to those who simply want to observe and to those who want to partici-
pate.   Knowledgable  participants  who will faithfully attend meetings and
contribute their expertise in both oral and written form, and who will con-
structively interact with the other participants, are always very welcome.

The Computer Music Association serves as the Secretariat of the Work  Group
as  one  of several activities designed to promote the exchange of informa-
tion about the use of computers and digital hardware and software for musi-
cal purposes.  Anyone who wants information on the Work Group, or copies of
the documents submitted to the Work Group, or the "standing  documents"  of
the Work Group (the list of participants, the most recent register of docu-
ments, etc.), can contact the CMA for those things.   Requesters  of  docu-
ments  are  charged  according  to  the  expenses  incurred  in filling the
requests (duplication, handling, and postage).  Rates are  $0.05  per  page
(which  amounts  to  $0.10  per  sheet) + $2.50 per order + actual postage.
Requesters will be invoiced for the amounts they owe; the invoice  will  be
included  in  the  package.   Amounts will be payable in U. S. dollars, but
please do not send cash.  All materials  requested  will  be  mailed  first
class  (or air mail to overseas addresses).  A new alternative X3V1.8M Sub-
scription Service is soon to be available which we hope will meet the needs
of  most  interested  parties:   for  a flat fee of $10.00/year, payable in
advance, we will send four issues.  Each issue will contain  the  announce-
ment  of  the  next  meeting, an updated document register, the most recent
edition of Journal of Technical Development (which eventually will  eventu-
ally evolve into the draft standard), and the most recent minutes.

Those who wish to submit documents relevant to the issues under  considera-
tion by X3V1.8M may do so at any time; the CMA will be happy to put them on
the document register and make them available to the  participants  and  to
the  public  by the procedure outlined above.  If the material is protected
by copyright, a letter from the copyright holder must be  included,  saying
that  the  copyright  holder waives all royalties and allows duplication of
the document(s) for purposes of X3V1.8M business.  Please be informed  that
there  is  no  point  in submitting documents to the Work Group for limited
circulation among certain participants; the Work Group must operate "in the
sunshine,"  and  therefore  all  documents  must  either  be  placed in the
document register for public consumption, or  they  cannot  be  distributed
through  Work  Group channels at all.  Documents containing confidential or
trade secret information MUST NOT BE SUBMITTED, AND THEY WILL NOT BE  KNOW-
INGLY ACCEPTED FOR DISTRIBUTION.

Work Group participants are those who have made  substantive  contributions
to the work either by mail ("corresponding" participants) and/or by attend-
ing the meetings ("attending" participants).  Within the limits of the gen-
erosity of corporate meeting hosts and other sponsors, mailings are made to
all participants of all documents added to the document register.   Because
of  the  high  cost  of  duplication and mailing, participants are narrowly
defined as those who have attended one or both of the  previous  two  meet-
ings,  or who, within the timeframe of the previous two meetings, have sub-
mitted written responses to the substance of  the  meetings  themselves  as
expressed in the Journal of Technical Development (e.g. X3V1.8M/87-12).

By creating an American National  Standard  Music  Representation  Language
now,  we  can  avoid  a  considerable amount of chaos and wasted/duplicated
effort later.  If we fail to create a such a standard soon, it  could  cost
music  researchers  many  man-years,  it  could cost the computer and music
instrument industries much lost revenue, and it could negatively affect the
careers  of an unknowable number of musicians.  There are some who say that
it is premature to develop a music representation standard  at  this  time.
There  are  others (including the participants in the present endeavor) who
say that setting such a standard is timely and perhaps overdue.  There  are
some  who  claim that standardizing the representation of music will stifle
creativity, or that the creation of music databases from the works  of  the
masters  will create additional layers of misunderstanding and serious com-
munications failures between composers, performers,  and  audiences.   Some
claim that musical scores, as the only tangible form of the composer's art,
would necessarily be misrepresented in  any  language  intended  to  convey
musical meaning--there would have to be some interpretation of the score in
order to perform the translation, and, at the very least, the  "eye  music"
would  be  lost.  Regardless of these concerns, it is undeniable that music
is going to be represented in computer-readable form, whether we like it or
not, and that if we do not take the initiative to create a standard openly,
we will either not have one (a wasteful, sorry situation),  or  there  will
eventually  be  a  de facto standard, arrived at in a haphazard and market-
driven fashion, which will not necessarily address the needs of significant
areas  in  the music field.  If we do create a standard, it can be as good,
as flexible, as meaningful, and as reverent as we want it to be.  Those who
care  about  the  result,  but do not participate in the process, have only
themselves to blame if the result does not meet their needs.  The need  for
a  cooperative  effort  by all interested parties cannot be overemphasized.
It is not very helpful, for example, simply  to  advise  the  group  of  an
expert  who  ought to be present, or a paper that ought to be read.  If you
know of persons who ought to be  participants,  you  should  recruit  them.
Feel  free  to  send  them  copies of this brochure or any other Work Group
papers.  If you know of a document that should be considered by the  group,
please contact its owner and request that it be contributed.

These are the standing documents of the X3V1.8M Standard Music  Representa-
tion Language Work Group:

     X3V1.8M/SD-0        This brochure.

     X3V1.8M/SD-1        Proposal for Project to Develop a New X3  Standard
                         Generalized  Music  Representation for Information
                         Processing, an ANSI proposal  dated  11/22/85.   4
                         pp.

     X3V1.8M/SD-2        Document  register.   Variable  number  of  pages.
                         Always  order  a fresh copy of this with any docu-
                         ment order; this is the only way to know about the
                         new documents.

     X3V1.8M/SD-3        Participants and  Officers.   Variable  number  of
                         pages.

     X3V1.8M/SD-4        Mailing list.  Variable number of pages.

X3V1.8M/SD-0    87/12/16

------------------------------

End of Music-Research Digest
******************************