Implement right-hand fingering dots

[reinierdevalk]

Example of dots:

milano-1546_6-no_8.png

In German tablature, another system is used (little attachments to the rhythm flags) - we should include that too.

[kepper]

• add a new @symbol (or similar) to att.fing.vis, which points to SMuFL values
• add a new @hand (or similar) to att.fing.log

[DILewis]

This is encoded as <fing playingHand='right' playingFinger='1' startid='m3.n6'/> in our Da Crema example, but this is a more general-use symbol than just for tablature.

[kepper]

shall we add a @fingattribute to the <fing> element to be able to control the values better?

[kepper]

My current thoughts on this:

• we should make att.fing.vis a member of att.extSym. This brings @glyph.auth, @glyph.name, @glyph.num, and @glyph.uri. Maybe more than asked for here, but at least it's consistent with other parts of the schema, and should cover upcoming use cases. Basically, with this, we can easily refer to SMuFL, but use other approaches as well. We already have @altsym, so I think this is pretty solid.
• The content of the element should be transcriptional: Whatever is written into the document should be given here – integers, letters, whatever. This goes along with the glyph stuff above.
• Since the content is transcriptional, it may not be easy to parse that semantically. Let's assume that it's necessary to be able to do so (use case: when sufficient material is encoded, look how many different ways are used to refer to the left hand index, or some such). Under that assumption, it is necessary to have controlled values for hands / fingers. Controlling values is easier in attributes. The one thing I'm wondering about, though: Shall we make this specific for hands and fingers (like @hand plus @fing), or should we try to be more generic – think of "tongue", "heel", "toe". The latter two are already values in articulation, but actually, one could argue that there also commonalities with fingering – it is an instruction on how to play an instrument, in order to produce a certain sound (articulation). However, they could be covered here as well, and we could come up with a (compound) data type for this, like 1, 1.rh, 1.lh, … , 5, heel, heel.left, forehead, … It could be split up in multiple classes, so that it'll be easy to turn off the more absurd ones. But still, it would be more generic than what we need.

For now, I'm curious to hear what others think, in particular about the potential overlaps between articulation and fingering. Is this something to worry about at all?

[kepper]

And just to clarify: From our meeting yesterday, I understand that it's safe to leave the dot to SMuFL / symbols, and we don't need to cover that on a semantic level, right?

[DILewis]

I agree with the first two bullets and much of the third.

My first reaction to the rest is that clumping all bodily instructions together might be confusing with little gain except, perhaps, a small reduction in the number of attributes. On the other hand, you're definitely right that there's a strong relationship.

The two places where I would imagine we're most likely to see these explored are also places I know least about – percussion notations and dance. Do we have anyone who might have opinions about those?