Propositions to fix the revision 1.01

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Frederick Giasson

unread,
Jan 18, 2007, 11:50:26 AM1/18/07
to music-ontology-sp...@googlegroups.com
Hi Folk,


Okay, there is what I am proposing for the revision of the revision 1.01 after
people commented out the revision 1.01:


Everything will be a mo:MusicalWork. In fact, a musical work could be see as an
album, a sountrack, an opera, etc. Then, a musical work will be expressed via a
mo:MusicalExpression. What is a musical expression? We can see it as a track ( a
muscail piece, a record, name it).

So, what is the relation between the two? Here what the FRBR final report say
about Work and Expression:

=======
*WORK*

A work is an abstract entity; there is no single material object one can point
to as the work. We recognize the work through individual realizations or
expressions of the work, but the work itself exists only in the commonality of
content between and among the various expressions of the work. When we speak of
Homer's Iliad as a work, our point of reference is not a particular recitation
or text of the work, but the intellectual creation that lies behind all the
various expressions of the work.
=======

What is important here is that we define a Work (MusicalWork) as the individual
realizations or pressions of the work: so the Expression (MusicalExpression).


One example from the report is: (w1 == Work 1, e1 == Expression 1, etc.):

=====

w1 J. S. Bach's The art of the fugue

* e1 the composer's score for organ
* e2 an arrangement for chamber orchestra by Anthony Lewis
* . . . .

=====


However, one should ask: okay, but what about re-working of a work for other
purpose, or by other people?: new Work.

In fact, the final report state that:


=====

By contrast, when the modification of a work involves a significant degree of
independent intellectual or artistic effort, the result is viewed, for the
purpose of this study, as a new work. Thus paraphrases, rewritings, adaptations
for children, parodies, musical variations on a theme and free transcriptions of
a musical composition are considered to represent new works.

=====


After that, what they say about Expression?

=======
*EXPRESSION*

The second entity defined in the model is expression: the intellectual or
artistic realization of a work in the form of alpha-numeric, musical, or
choreographic notation, sound, image, object, movement, etc., or any combination
of such forms.
=======

So, what I was calling a mo:Track, was in fact a mo:MusicalExpression. In fact,
a mo:MusicalExpression can have these caracteristics:

- A time length (the time a person can hear sound)
- A pitch
- A key
- etc.

From the report, we can see the example:

=====

w1 Franz Schubert's Trout quintet

* e1 the composer's score
* e2 a performance by the Amadeus Quartet and Hephzibah Menuhin on piano
* e3 a performance by the Cleveland Quartet and Yo-Yo Ma on the cello

=====


Finally, if we check what is a Manifestation:


=======
*MANIFESTATION*

The third entity defined in the model is manifestation: the physical embodiment
of an expression of a work.

The entity defined as manifestation encompasses a wide range of materials,
including manuscripts, books, periodicals, maps, posters, sound recordings,
films, video recordings, CD-ROMs, multimedia kits, etc. As an entity,
manifestation represents all the physical objects that bear the same
characteristics, in respect to both intellectual content and physical form.

When a work is realized, the resulting expression of the work may be physically
embodied onA work is an abstract entity; there is no single material object one
can point to as the work. We recognize the work through individual realizations
or expressions of the work, but the work itself exists only in the commonality
of content between and among the various expressions of the work. When we speak
of Homer's Iliad as a work, our point of reference is not a particular
recitation or text of the work, but the intellectual creation that lies behind
all the various expressions of the work.
=======


An example:

=====

w1 J. S. Bach's Six suites for unaccompanied cello

* e1 performances by Janos Starker recorded in 1963 and 1965
o m1 recordings released on 33 1/3 rpm sound discs in 1965 by Mercury
o m2 recordings re-released on compact disc in 1991 by Mercury
* e2 performances by Yo-Yo Ma recorded in 1983
o m1 recordings released on 33 1/3 rpm sound discs in 1983 by CBS Records
o m2 recordings re-released on compact disc in 1992 by CBS Records

=====

Okay, there we are. The manifestation is in fact all about the "publication" of
a Work (all related to the musical industry, the market, etc.).

So, what do I propose?

Having:
-------

frbr:Work --> mo:MusicalWork

frbr:Expression --> mo:MusicalExpression

frbr:Manifestation --> mo:MusicalManifestation


mo:Medium --> mo:Cd
--> mo:Vinyl
--> ...

mo:ReleaseStatus ...


-------


So I propose to remove the mo:Cd, mo:ALbum, etc, as subclasses of
mo:MusicalWork, mo:MUsicalExpression and mo:MusicalManifestation.


But now, how everything is related? That way:


===============================

<mo:MusicalManifestation
rdf:about="http://mm.Music.org/album/a89e1d92-5381-4dab-ba51-733137d0e431">

<rdfs:label>Kill 'em All</rdfs:label>
<dc:creator
rdf:resource="http://mm.Music.org/artist/65f4f0c5-ef9e-490c-aee3-909e7ae6b2ab"/>
<dcterms:created>1983-07-13T00:00:00Z</dcterms:created>

<!-- The manifestaton is recorded on a CD -->
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/ontology/mo/Cd" />

<!-- The manifestation is considered an Album by the industry -->
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/ontology/mo/Album" />

<!-- The release status of the manifestation is Official (by the Label) -->
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://purl.org/ontology/mo/Official" />

<mo:image
rdf:resource="http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00000B9AN.01._AA180_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg"
/>
<mo:amazon_asin rdf:resource="http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00000B9AN/" />


<!-- here mo:Track is used to express the recorded entity of a
MusicalExpression (in fact, a Musical
expression can, or cannot be recorded). Also, the domain of has_track
is a CD not a MusicalManifestation -->
<mo:has_track
rdf:resource="http://mm.Music.org/track/8467f4e7-ef5b-458c-bbc5-6727d9f2252d"
mo:trackNum="1" />

<!-- ... -->

<mo:has_track
rdf:resource="http://mm.Music.org/track/833bcfc4-8c89-49d8-be52-4eb926b48ab0"
mo:trackNum="10" />

</mo:MusicalManifestation>


<mo:Track
rdf:about="http://mm.Music.org/track/8467f4e7-ef5b-458c-bbc5-6727d9f2252d">
<mo:MusicalExpression rdf:parseType="Resource">
<rdfs:label>Hit the Lights</rdfs:label>
<dc:creator
rdf:resource="http://mm.Music.org/artist/68c34082-c1d5-4399-af9b-3921ca0a6a1f" />
<dc:creator
rdf:resource="http://mm.Music.org/artist/e2190b35-1181-44f6-8587-4c04123a6f30" />
<mo:duration>310000</mo:duration>
</mo:MusicalExpression>
</mo:Track>

<mo:Track
rdf:about="http://mm.Music.org/track/833bcfc4-8c89-49d8-be52-4eb926b48ab0">
<mo:MusicalExpression rdf:parseType="Resource">
<rdfs:label>Metal Militia</rdfs:label>
<dc:creator
rdf:resource="http://mm.Music.org/artist/68c34082-c1d5-4399-af9b-3921ca0a6a1f" />
<dc:creator
rdf:resource="http://mm.Music.org/artist/e2190b35-1181-44f6-8587-4c04123a6f30" />
<dc:creator
rdf:resource="http://mm.Music.org/artist/2f58d07c-4ed6-4f29-8b10-95266e16fe1b" />
<mo:duration>290000</mo:duration>
<mo:trmid>d474dcc7-4670-417e-a65d-b287e4d198e7</mo:trmid>
<mo:trmid>309ffc02-c3b9-4c45-8ad1-d144fc4a8f79</mo:trmid>
<mo:puid>1c655ca1-9068-f781-72d4-49f329d91410</mo:puid>
<mo:puid>67fffb77-df0d-720b-3b85-3f5d078e58ae</mo:puid>
</mo:MusicalExpression>
</mo:Track>

===============================


So, as you can see above:

An instance A is of types: MusicalManifestation, Cd, Official and Album.

The instance A has tracks.

And tracks are the recorded instances of MusicalExpressions. I will have to
re-define all the domains of these properties, etc. But all-in-all, it is what I
am proposing.

That way, one will be able to define musical work without caring about the
Manifestation of the work. And another one will be able to define Manifestation
of a work for commercial purposes (mapping the Musicabrainz DB using the MO
ontology for example.


What do you think of that?

Salutations,


Fred

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages