New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

wish: \choice element like MEI's <choice> #61

Open
uliska opened this Issue Dec 19, 2017 · 1 comment

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@uliska
Contributor

uliska commented Dec 19, 2017

For some time I have thought about implementing functionality to encode variants between sources or originals and corrections etc. By now I have come to the conclusion that this should be done in scholarLY, whether as an additional module (probably cleaner) or as an extension of the existing functionality.

This should be modeled after MEI's critical apparatus and Editorial Markup elements.

From the latter I'm particularly thinking about the elements for "apparent errors" and "regularization", but it has to be thoroughly discussed what makes sense for LilyPond/scholarLY.

The idea is to make possible input similar to

{
  c d e f
    \choice \with {
      sic = { g a b }
      corr = \with {
        resp = "Anton Diabelli"
        cert = "likely"
      } { ges as bes }
    }
  c
}

Apart from documenting corrections it should be possible to cover readings from diffrerent sources, completions or emendations or regularizations (e.g. spelling of lyrics or performance indications).

It may be a good idea not to create this functionality as additional commands but as enhancements of the existing annotations. If I recall correctly it is often an issue to decide a) which reading to encode as the music (the one found in the source or the one deemed "correct") and how to phrase the annotation to make that relation clear. With a built-in choice element it would be possible to encode both (or even multiple) readings and refer to them properly in the textual annotation. Maybe it could even go as far as being able to produce music examples from them in a footnote, e.g. "source A reads like this: ..."

When rendering an option should choose which readings to retrieve. And it should be possible that the choice affects the rendering according to our editorial-functions.

NOTE: Before any implementation it has to be discussed how the idea relates to similar functionality implemented using tags.


NOTE (to self): I have the impression that any extension of scholarLY's functionality increases the pressure to implement some sort of dialog-based annotation editor. I think Frescobaldi should urgently get openLilyLib support to make that possible. But I have also thought about implementing a dialog as a snippet. Don't know if that's possible, but it should be.

@uliska

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@uliska

uliska Dec 20, 2017

Contributor

Idea for the integration of annotations in a choice:

{
  c d e f
    \choice \with {
      sic = { g a b }
      corr = \with {
        resp = "Anton Diabelli"
        cert = "likely"
      } { ges as bes }
      criticalRemark = \with {
        author = "NN"
        message = "NN"
      }
    }
  c
}

Questions:

  • Is it clear how the annotation relates to the choice that is actually selected?
  • Correspondingly, what editorial-function should be applied, depending on the choice?
  • Will that easily work with functionality like triggering footnotes etc.?
  • Is there a way to produce music examples and/or ossias from "the other" choice? How is that if we have more than two elements (e.g. sic, corr, and reg)?
Contributor

uliska commented Dec 20, 2017

Idea for the integration of annotations in a choice:

{
  c d e f
    \choice \with {
      sic = { g a b }
      corr = \with {
        resp = "Anton Diabelli"
        cert = "likely"
      } { ges as bes }
      criticalRemark = \with {
        author = "NN"
        message = "NN"
      }
    }
  c
}

Questions:

  • Is it clear how the annotation relates to the choice that is actually selected?
  • Correspondingly, what editorial-function should be applied, depending on the choice?
  • Will that easily work with functionality like triggering footnotes etc.?
  • Is there a way to produce music examples and/or ossias from "the other" choice? How is that if we have more than two elements (e.g. sic, corr, and reg)?
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment