Strategy, in which encoders must choose for themselves the approach appropriate to To cater for this diversity, here as elsewhere, these Guidelines propose a flexible of the material, able to support practitioners of quantitative codicology as well as librarians. Searched for literal strings, or for such features such as titles, authors and dates Īt the other, a project may wish to create, in highly structured and encoded form,Ī detailed database of information about the physical characteristics, history, interpretation,Įtc. At one extreme, a project may simply wish to captureĪn existing catalogue in a form that can be displayed on the Web, and which can be Opposed to the ideas and interpretations the description represents others may haveĮntirely opposite priorities. Some may be primarily concerned to represent accurately the description itself, as The other, they may be engaged in cataloguing ex nihilo, that is, creating new detailed descriptions for materials never before catalogued. On the one hand, encoders may be engaged in retrospective conversion of existing detailed descriptions and catalogues into machine tractable form on The scheme described here is also intended to accommodate the needs of many differentĬlasses of encoders.
Not the primary concern, encoders may wish to use the object element which provides a very similar system of description (see 13.3.5 Objects. Useful for any kind of text-bearing artefact. That it can also be extended to other traditions and materials, and is potentially Manuscripts in the European tradition, the scheme presented here is general enough Originally developed to meet the needs of cataloguers and scholars working with medieval Information about handwritten primary sources and other text-bearing objects. Fortunately, anyone can use Clairnote SN no matter which side of that debate they are on.The msdescription module 42 defines a special purpose element which can be used to provide detailed descriptive Whether that differentiation is relevant or not is a matter of long-standing debate. This includes differentiating between enharmonic equivalents. Thanks to Clairnote SN's accidental signs and key signatures, Clairnote SN can be used with the standard nomenclature and convey all of the information conveyed by traditional notation.
See key signatures and accidental signs for more details. A musician playing in D major that sees an F# note will know that it is an F# and not a Gb because the key is a sharp key, as indicated by the key signature. For example, the key of D major (D E F# G A B C#) is a sharp key because it has two sharps. This is because any given key may contain either sharp notes or flat notes but not both.
Also, the only thing you have to remember about the key signature is whether it is a sharp key or flat key, since that is enough to tell you whether the note is a sharp or flat. The difference is that in Clairnote SN you already know enough to play the note based on its staff position alone (without referring to an accidental sign or the key signature). To determine the name of any note on the traditional staff you always need to refer to the accidental sign (if there is one) and the key signature. This is very similar to how it works in traditional notation. When you see one of these "black-key" notes on the Clairnote SN staff you would refer to the accidental sign (if there is one) or the key signature to determine the name of the note. The black keys on a piano have two "equally primary" names, as do the "black key" frets on the guitar, etc. We are not used to having notes on the staff that do not have a single primary name, but we are used to this when it comes to instruments, so it helps to think of it in those terms. Each of these "black-key" notes can have one of two different names, assuming no double-sharps or double-flats.
0 kommentar(er)
