On Tue, 2005-02-15 at 11:03, Jon Murphy wrote: > You accurately "read between the lines" that my thrust was for data > exchange. And that my long example of the attempts by some companies to > monopolize the internet (considered a "free resource", although it is > actually supported by the owners of the various main frames that do the > routing in the network) was meant to speak to that issue. > > I'm glad to hear that there was an attempt at a universal data exchange > format (NIF), and sad that it hasn't been used (although that might be an > inadequacy on its part). And pleased to hear that there is another attempt > (Music XML). > > The point is not that there should be free access to a programmer's product, > that would be counter productive to innovation.
Wrong. The most innovative products are from free access to protocols and sources. Internet itself is the most well known example (all protocols are accessible in the RFC documents, free available). But think of the excellent internetbrowsers like mozilla; all open source. Microsoft behaviour with closed protocols, sources and interfaces is an example how innovation results in bad products (I call windows and all the application sh*tware bad products). Most innovation nowadays is coming from linux sides with open source. Companies like suse/novell, mysql, trolltech, fmslabs and many others are examples how open source goes nicely with making profit, while creating a basis for innovation. > It is that there should be a > basic protocol agreed to by all involved for data exchange, rather than a > proprietary protocol that limits it. If any programmer wants to provide > bells and whistles within his work piece that is fine, and each user will > have a preferred program for creating and printing music (or anything else > in some other protocol). > > Speaking specifically of music the ideal would be a protocol that could > transmit without regard to notation. The absolute notes themselves. Whether > that was done as serial notes with individual time signatures, then the next > line (with voids for open chords, etc) so that there would be ten or twenty > series for a full score with a header to define them - or a parallel set of > notes (again with the rests and the voids) is irrelevant. But that is what I > would see as an ideal data exchange protocol. One that is converted from > notation to notes for transmission, and back to notation for reception. Then > the individual programs can treat them as they choose. Perhaps a > modification, and expansion, of the MIDI protocol. > > The notation should be the result of the local program, the transmission > should be the absolute notes. This last line is correct, but surely not by using MIDI. This is exactly what music XML is trying to do. Several 'normal' notation programs like sibelius, finale, and several open source notation packages already use this. Ofcourse lutetablature is not defined yet, but it can be quite done. Alain is quite right that he waits until such a definition is presented instead of making his own definition, (although conversion between xml formats is quite easy using xslt). Taco Walstra To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
