Instruments, Scores, MusicalWorks
Richard Lewis
regular
mail client earlier and I'm not sure if gmail likes me doing that.]
Hi there,
Two questions, not unrelated:
1) Does MO include the concept of a mo:Score (mo:MusicalExpression)
stipulating that an mo:Instrument should be used?
2) And if there were a relationship between mo:Instruments and
mo:MusicalWorks, what would it be?
Best,
Richard
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Richard Lewis
ISMS, Computing
Goldsmiths, University of London
Tel: +44 (0)20 7078 5134
Skype: richardjlewis
JID: ironc...@jabber.earth.li
http://www.richardlewis.me.uk/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Richard Lewis
>
> Two questions, not unrelated:
>
> 1) Does MO include the concept of a mo:Score (mo:MusicalExpression)
> stipulating that an mo:Instrument should be used?
>
> 2) And if there were a relationship between mo:Instruments and
> mo:MusicalWorks, what would it be?
$ curl -d "uri=http://igor.gold.ac.uk/~map01rl/pocac/prokofiev-
op-36.html&format=pretty-xml&warnings=false&parser=lax&space-
preserve=true" http://www.w3.org/2007/08/pyRdfa/extract
The relevant bit is:
<foaf:Agent rdf:about="http://dbpedia.org/page/Sergei_Prokofiev">
<mo:composer>
<mo:Composition rdf:about="http://sergei-prokofiev.net/works/
op36#composition">
<mo:produced_work>
<mo:MusicalWork rdf:about="http://sergei-prokofiev.net/works/
op36">
<mo:opus xml:lang="en">Op. 36</mo:opus>
<dc:identifier xml:lang="en">Op. 36</dc:identifier>
<mo-i:includes_instrument>
<mo:Instrument rdf:about="http://sergei-prokofiev.net/
works/op36#Voice"/>
</mo-i:includes_instrument>
<mo-i:includes_instrument>
<mo:Instrument rdf:about="http://sergei-prokofiev.net/
works/op36#Piano"/>
</mo-i:includes_instrument>
<dc:title xml:lang="en">Five Poems for Voice and Piano</
dc:title>
</mo:MusicalWork>
</mo:produced_work>
<_11:event.owltime xml:lang="en">http://placetime.com/interval/
gregorian/1921-01-01T00:00:00Z/P1Y</_11:event.owltime>
</mo:Composition>
</mo:composer>
</foaf:Agent>
where "mo-i" is my imaginary music ontology and mo-
i:includes_instrument asserts that a mo:MusicalWork is intended to be
performed using an mo:Instrument.
Anyone have any thoughts on whether this is a good idea? Should
perhaps the mo:Score instead assert the intention that an
mo:Instrument is to be used?
I think the larger problem I'm grappling with here is mo:MusicalWorks
without performances; any of the information that would normally be
associated with a performance (such as instruments used) is not
available if no performance is being described.
Best,
Richard
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Richard Lewis
ISMS, Computing
Goldsmiths, University of London
Tel: +44 (0)20 7078 5134
Skype: richardjlewis
http://www.richardlewis.me.uk/
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Yves Raimond
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Richard Lewis <rjlewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [apologies if this message appears twice; I tried sending from my
> regular
> mail client earlier and I'm not sure if gmail likes me doing that.]
>
> Hi there,
>
> Two questions, not unrelated:
>
> 1) Does MO include the concept of a mo:Score (mo:MusicalExpression)
> stipulating that an mo:Instrument should be used?
>
As I remember it, I think it was meant to be handled by a
mo:Transcription event, which could have as many instruments as needed
as factors. However, I agree it is a bit clunky. A property linking a
mo:Score to instruments would do though.
> 2) And if there were a relationship between mo:Instruments and
> mo:MusicalWorks, what would it be?
I guess you want to talk about mo:Score, not mo:MusicalWork - there
could be many different instrumentation of a single work.
Best,
y
>
> Best,
> Richard
> --
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Richard Lewis
> ISMS, Computing
> Goldsmiths, University of London
> Tel: +44 (0)20 7078 5134
> Skype: richardjlewis
> JID: ironc...@jabber.earth.li
> http://www.richardlewis.me.uk/
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to music-ontology-sp...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to music-ontology-specific...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group?hl=en.
>
>
Bob Ferris
I would say that all this looks good so far ;)
>
> Anyone have any thoughts on whether this is a good idea? Should
> perhaps the mo:Score instead assert the intention that an
> mo:Instrument is to be used?
I think you can already relate an instrument to a mo:MusicalWork
instance. You can imagine this level of abstraction as a kind of idea,
i.e., you have, e.g., a song idea in mind and you already know which
instruments you would like to utilise. When describing a score (via a
mo:Score) instance you usually would be a bit more concrete, i.e.,
assign a line of notes or a melody to a specific instrument etc.
>
> I think the larger problem I'm grappling with here is mo:MusicalWorks
> without performances; any of the information that would normally be
> associated with a performance (such as instruments used) is not
> available if no performance is being described.
At a particular performance the utilised instruments probably can vary
from the instruments that are associated to the utilised score.
I guess, we need to add a new property for your intended use case, e.g.,
mo:utilised_instrument.
Cheers,
Bo
Lynne Carmichael
MO has a term 'instrumentation' that always looks to me as if it should be used for the 'abstract' notion of what instruments are supposed to be used (as opposed to ones used in performance) - the comments on the website are a bit unclear as to how it should be used in practice.
Cheers
Lynne Carmichael
Hi Richard,
Cheers,
Bo
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to music-ontology-sp...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to music-ontology-specific...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group?hl=en.
--
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
The information contained in this email and any attachment is confidential and
may contain legally privileged or copyright material. It is intended only for
the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this
email, you are not permitted to disseminate, distribute or copy this email or
any attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete this email from your system. The ABC does not
represent or warrant that this transmission is secure or virus free. Before
opening any attachment you should check for viruses. The ABC's liability is
limited to resupplying any email and attachments.
Bob Ferris
On 8/23/2011 11:42 PM, Lynne Carmichael wrote:
> Hi
>
> MO has a term 'instrumentation' that always looks to me as if it should be used for the 'abstract' notion of what instruments are supposed to be used (as opposed to ones used in performance) - the comments on the website are a bit unclear as to how it should be used in practice.
mo:Instrumentation is an event. It is a sub class of mo:Arrangement.
This event can be utilised to describe the relation between a
mo:MusicalWork instance (a factor of this event) and a mo:Score instance
(a product of this event), i.e., it is intended for specific
instrumentation descriptions (play technique of a specific instrument
etc.) and hence a bit more complex than simply relating the instrument
to a musical work or score (from my POV).
Cheers,
Bo