A. 
The first step consists of clearly identifying the musical corpus to be edited and evaluating the feasibility of the project. The editor must determine: the nature of the repertoire (plainchant, polyphony, tablature, contemporary music); whether a reconstruction of missing voices is required or whether the work is complete; the existence and accessibility of sources (manuscripts, printed editions, recordings); and the availability of prior editions to be consulted for a critical edition. 

B.
A financial and human resources appraisal must be conducted at this stage, as costs vary substantially depending on the corpus. This preliminary assessment determines whether the project can be conducted by a single researcher or requires a multidisciplinary team, and informs any funding application to be submitted to national or European bodies.

Access to primary sources is a prerequisite for any critical edition and must be addressed before encoding begins. Where sources have not yet been digitized, the editor should follow the IIIF (International Image Interoperability Framework) protocol, which enables standardized sharing, annotation, and long-term preservation of high-resolution images. IIIF allows any rectangular fragment of a manuscript to be directly addressed via a URL, and supports comparative visualization across multiple sources and collections. 

Where digitizations already exist in institutional repositories (libraries, archives), the editor should link to them rather than duplicate them, while verifying the legal conditions of their reuse. Two access modalities are available: a hyperlink to an externally hosted digitized resource, or an IIIF viewer integrated directly into the digital edition interface. 

The availability of digitized sources is particularly crucial for early music, where the faithful transcription of ligatures, mensuration signs, tablature systems, and other notational features requires direct visual reference to the manuscript.

The second step involves selecting both an encoding format and a notational tool suited to the corpus and the edition's intended objectives. At this stage, the editor must determine whether the project calls for a diplomatic or a critical edition.

Regarding notational tools, MuseScore (open source) stands as the currently recommended choice: it supports direct export to MEI without requiring plugins. Sibelius and Finale, though still widely used in professional contexts, are no longer under active development and cannot be considered viable long-term solutions. For early or non-Western repertoires, specialized tools may prove necessary — among them Gregorio for neumatic notation, LuteScribe and Fronimo for tablature, and the ReTab module for lute tablature in MEI.

The choice of encoding format has major consequences for the interoperability and analytical potential of the edition. MEI (Music Encoding Initiative) is strongly recommended for scholarly digital editions: it allows the coexistence of graphical score visualization and semantic encoding of musical data, accommodates a critical apparatus and a metadata header, and opens the way to computational analysis via tools such as Music21 and Humdrum. MusicXML remains a widely supported interchange format, suitable at the data-transfer stage of the workflow. PDF, by contrast, is appropriate only for dissemination purposes and does not constitute a digital edition in the full sense of the term.

Encoding is the central intellectual and technical operation of the digital edition. It involves transcribing musical information into structured, machine-readable data, capturing not only the visual symbols of the score but also their semantic significance. Before encoding, the editor must define which signs are essential and which are complementary: staves, pitches, rhythmic values, dynamics, and measures constitute primary data; ficta accidentals, ornaments, and performance indications may be treated as secondary layers, depending on whether the edition prioritizes analytical use or performer accessibility. Good encoding practice avoids an excessive accumulation of customized or unconventional graphical elements, which compromise file integrity and interoperability. 

The choice between prioritizing logical readability (for analytical purposes) and visual fidelity must be made deliberately and applied consistently. For works with text (vocal music), particular care must be taken to align syllables precisely with their corresponding notes. MEI's attribute allows each element to be uniquely identified, enabling subsequent linkage to sources and audio recordings via thesauruses and reference systems. For some notational symbols (e.g. musica ficta), Python scripts can automate corrections across the encoded corpus, provided the initial encoding has been properly prepared.

Metadata are the foundation of the edition's discoverability, interoperability, and long-term reuse. In MEI format, metadata are gathered in the file header, which must at minimum allow for the generation of an appropriate bibliographic citation. The header is structured into three major sections within : (title, subtitle, composer), (editors, encoders, proofreaders, identified by ORCID), and (source description linked to RISM, VIAF, and other reference systems). A recommended best practice is to register the work with RISM regardless of its historical period: a RISM ID allows the linking of key information including source type, editorial contributions, and holding institution. For projects with substantial metadata needs, the FRBR model (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records) can be integrated into the header to establish precise connections with library standards. MEI headers that contain URIs can be directly linked to manuscript images via Verovio. Reference systems to consult include VIAF (persons), Wikidata (works and persons), Geonames (places), Getty AAT (concepts), MIMO (instruments), and RISM (musical sources). For large corpora, Richard Freedman's mei_tools and Mermeid facilitate batch metadata management and visualization.

Once the encoding and metadata are complete, the file must be validated to ensure its structural integrity and conformance to the MEI schema. MEIFriend provides real-time validation and allows corrections to be made directly in the browser. Verovio serves as the primary rendering tool, converting MEI files into SVG for web visualization; the editor must verify that the graphical output is satisfactory and that all notational elements are correctly rendered. It should be noted that Verovio does not yet support all aspects of advanced notation (medieval repertories, contemporary graphic symbols): elements not supported are silently ignored and will not be preserved in MEI output. Where multiple output formats are required (MIDI for performers, audio for general audiences, REST API for interoperability), the converter Meico (Java-based) and MEI Garage (web interface) facilitate format conversion from MEI. OCR/OMR tools (Audiveris, Aruspix, the DMOS system developed within the Collabscore project) can assist with the initial transcription of printed or manuscript sources, though their output requires careful scholarly correction.

For critical editions, this step involves the systematic encoding of textual variants, editorial emendations, and scholarly annotations within the MEI file or an associated annotation layer. MEI supports a dedicated critical apparatus (using the , , and elements), which enables multiple readings to be encoded within a single master file and linked to their respective sources. The editor must decide in advance on a minimal yet meaningful set of annotation criteria, so that the significance of each source remains clearly perceptible without overloading the file with cross-references. Online platforms implementing collaborative annotation workflows --- such as Gesualdo Online digital edition, both hosted at the RicercarDataLab --- provide established models: annotating users are identified by contributor level, annotations are categorized by type (Duration, Emendation, Pitch, etc.) and validated by an administrator before integration into the master file. The critical apparatus can also incorporate audio files (MIDI or live recordings), provided the relevant rights have been cleared. Synchronization between encoded files and audio recordings remains technically challenging and is currently achieved by only a small number of projects (e.g. the Marenzio edition).

All stages of the editorial process are subject to legal constraints that must be anticipated from the outset. Under European law, the status of a scholarly editor is distinct from that of a creator, but this distinction carries rights implications that can give rise to disputes if not managed carefully. Key legal considerations include: the copyright status of the musical work itself (works enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the composer in the EU); the rights attached to existing printed editions (which may themselves be protected, independently of the underlying work); the rights associated with audio recordings to be integrated into the edition; and the intellectual property of the encoding work and any software used. Creative Commons licenses are strongly recommended for scholarly digital editions: the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license (author must be credited, non-commercial use only, derivative editions permitted) is particularly well suited to critical editions. All contributors must be properly credited, including students who have participated in encoding or proofreading. Where institutions operate under commercial publishing agreements (as in the hybrid model of the Centre de Musique Baroque de Versailles), the financial implications of Open Access must be negotiated at project design stage.

The presentation model determines how users will interact with the edition: which notational layers are displayed by default, how annotations and source facsimiles are accessed, what musical analysis features are offered, and how the interface adapts to different user communities (performers, musicologists, students, the general public). The presentation layer should be designed in complementary fashion to the encoding layer: visual rendering must not be optimized at the expense of machine readability, as a score that is aesthetically pleasing but poorly structured for machines limits the edition's interoperability and analytical potential. Annotation spaces must be carefully architected: setting up a dynamic web interface with collaborative annotation capabilities requires substantial technical expertise and dedicated human resources. The Polish Music Heritage project offers a reference model combining IIIF-based manuscript visualization, MEI score display with multiple export options, and deep metadata links to RISM, Wikidata, and other reference systems. For collections requiring performance history and reception data, Dezède (a relational database for archiving performances) offers complementary functionality beyond what a critical edition's architecture can accommodate.

The final step of the workflow concerns the long-term sustainability of the edition: the choice of a trusted repository, the conditions of indexing, and the prevention of obsolescence. Data hosting on virtual machines provided by national research infrastructures is recommended for publicly funded projects. In France, Nakala (hosted by Huma-Num) provides a FAIR-compliant repository specifically designed for humanities and social sciences data produced by institutions affiliated with the French Ministry of Higher Education and Research. NEUMA (also hosted by Huma-Num) is a digital music library providing online access to encoded musical corpora. 

Interoperability should be considered from the earliest stages of the editorial project in order to ensure the edition's integration into the larger research ecosystem. The edition must be correctly indexed in relevant discovery portals: the SSH Open Marketplace, RISM, and the IIIF community's shared infrastructures. A stable persistent identifier (DOI via Zenodo, or a handle) must be assigned. Finally, the question of format obsolescence must be anticipated: MEI, like LaTeX, relies on plain text files with tags, a preservation strategy that is more robust than proprietary binary formats.

Augustin Braud

Philippe Vendrix

Giorgia Lo Nigro

A digital edition encodes musical information as structured, machine-readable, and semantically rich data, a transformation that requires a series of methodological and technical decisions. This workflow addresses the full range of operations involved, including the choice of encoding format, the management of metadata, the establishment of relationships with sources, the integration of a critical apparatus, and the conditions for sustainable online publication.
It outlines the essential steps required to produce a scholarly digital music edition, from the initial scoping of the corpus to its long-term archiving and dissemination. Structured around the three pillars of digital editing—tools, content, and presentation—it is designed to ensure compliance with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) principles throughout the entire lifecycle of the edition.

Developed from the Guide to Digital Music Editing produced by the Consortium-HN MUSICA within the French research infrastructure Huma-Num, this workflow also aligns with the requirements of the European ECHOES project (European Cloud for Heritage Open Science), which frames digital editions as components of digital twins integrating source digitization, musical encoding, and audio recording. It is intended for researchers, digital humanists, and engineers working in institutional contexts shaped by Open Access policies and European research funding frameworks.

Edit actor

Other URLs relevant to the resource, e.g. ORCID, etc.

URL, ideally landing page, of the resource.

Person/group/body who helped create the resource.

Should be concise and raise interest in the entry. Allows <Link>Markdown</Link> content.

Other URLs relevant to the resource, e.g. code, DOI, etc.

Upload media

URL pointing to info about the access policy.

The activities you can do with the resource. See <Link></Link>.

Name of the conference where paper was given.

Describes the discipline covered by resource. See <Link></Link>.

Locations where the Resource is offered. See <Link></Link>.

URL to helpdesk for incidents & user requests.

Audience targeted by the resource. See <Link></Link>.

A particular published issue of a journal.

Concept or term related to MP entry. See <Link></Link>.

Language(s) in which a resource is available. See <Link></Link>.

Select license pertaining to resource. See <Link></Link>. If license is unknown, use the "Terms of use" property field to describe the usage terms.

Status of the Resource life-cycle. See <Link></Link>.

Mode of use for the resource. See <Link></Link>.

File format of the linked resource. See <Link></Link>.

Page #s of a resource, separate by commas.

Refine the resource's nature and function. See <Link></Link>.

Links to non-MP materials that are relevant.

Info about performance levels provider expected to deliver.

Standard used by the resource. See <Link></Link>.

Technology Readiness Level of the Resource. See <Link></Link>.

Resource user manual and documentation URL.

Version of the tool or service that is linked.

The volume of a journal or multivolume book.

Edit source

Name

If you are having trouble with the sign in process, please <ContactLink>contact the SSH Open Marketplace team</ContactLink>.

If you are having trouble with the sign up process, please <ContactLink>contact the SSH Open Marketplace team</ContactLink>.

Creation of a Digital Music Edition

Media

Related items(4)

Collaborative Digital Edition of a Musical Corpus

Répertoire International des Sources Musicales (RISM) - International Inventory of Musical Sources

Guide to Digital Music Editing

Musicology as data science and heritage science

Workflow steps(10)

1 Define the Corpus and Assess Feasibility

2 Consult and Digitize Sources

3 Choose a Notation Software and an Encoding Strategy

4 Encode the Musical Data

5 Declare and Enrich Metadata

6 Validate the Encoding and Manage File Conversion

7 Build the Critical Apparatus and Annotation Spaces

8 Address Copyright and Assign a License

9 Design the Presentation Model and Online Interface

10 Deposit, Archive, and Ensure Long-Term Sustainability