Computers and the Humanities

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 25–30 | Cite as

A music knowledge representation system combining symbolic and analogic approaches

  • Antonio Camurri
  • Marcello Frixione
  • Renato Zaccaria
Article
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

This paper describes the artificial intelligence (AI) methodologies and the system's architecture of a prototypical intelligent composer's assistant, called HARP (Hybrid Action Representation and Planning). The model is hybrid, since it stands on both symbolic (structured multiple inheritance semantic nets, SI-Nets) and analogic knowledge representation paradigms. Composition processes are modeled in this framework as plans to be accomplished to reach given goals. The paper focusses on the symbolic part of the system: how to store the analogic descriptions of processes in a knowledge base, and how to use them in a music composition environment.

Key Words

Action Representation Semantic Networks Experts Systems Compositional Tools 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bel, Bernard. “Time and Musical Structures”.Interface, 19, 2–3 (1990), 107–35.Google Scholar
  2. Brachman, Ronald J. “What's in a Concept: Structural Foundations for Semantic Networks”.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 9 (1977), 127–52.Google Scholar
  3. Brachman, Ronald J. and James G. Schmolze. “An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System”.Cognitive Science, 9 (1985), 171–216.Google Scholar
  4. Camurri, Antonio. “On the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Music Research”.Interface, 19, 2–3 (1990), 219–48.Google Scholar
  5. Camurri, Antonio, Marcello Frixione, Salvatore Gaglio and Renato Zaccaria. “A Structured Approach to Action Representation”. AI*IA-89, Associazione Italiana per l'Intelligenza Artificiale. Trento (Italy): CENFOR International Books, 1989, 11–19.Google Scholar
  6. Camurri, Antonio, Marcello Frixione, Giovanni Vercelli and Renato Zaccaria. “Some Concepts on Analogic Planning in Assembly Tasks”. European Conference of Artificial Intelligence (ECAI-90), Stockholm, 1990, 132–37.Google Scholar
  7. De Poli, Giovanni, Luca Irone and Alvise Vidolin. “Music Score Interpretation Using a Multilevel Knowledge Base”.Interface, 19, 2–3 (1990), 137–46.Google Scholar
  8. Johnson-Laird, P.N.Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. Laske, Otto E. “Composition Theory: An Enrichment of Music Theory”.Interface, 18, 1–2 (1989), 45–59.Google Scholar
  10. Leman, Marc, ed. “Automated Compositional Strategies”.Interface, 17, 1–2 (1988), 171–72.Google Scholar
  11. Lerdahl, Fred and Ray Jackendoff.A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  12. Loy, Gareth. “Player — Extensions to the C Programming Language for Parallel Processing and Music Synthesis Control”.CARL Software Release. Center for Experimental Music. San Diego: University of California, 1985.Google Scholar
  13. Minsky, Marvin. “A Framework for Representing Knowledge”. InPsychology of Computer Vision. Ed. P. Winston. McGraw-Hill, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. Roads, Curtis. “Research in Music and Artificial Intelligence”.ACM Computing Surveys, 17, 2 (1985), 163–90.Google Scholar
  15. Steel, Sam. “The Bread and Butter of Planning”.Artificial Intelligence Review, 1 (1987), 159–81.Google Scholar
  16. Shoham, Yoav. “Temporal Logics in AI: Semantical and Ontological Considerations”.Artificial Intelligence, 33 (1987), 89–104.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Camurri
    • 1
  • Marcello Frixione
    • 1
  • Renato Zaccaria
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Communication, Computer and System SciencesUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations