Theories resting solely on human movement do not account for the important roles of music, and other components of the multi-media artform. Problems of evaluation do not make sense if dance is considered to consist solely of movement. If all other media are merely accompaniments, like the frame of a picture, then the long and substantial debate about the relative importance of those other components in determining the goodness of the work is nonsensical. Theories that the medium of dance is solely movement, a virtual image, or a fusion of several media are thus unacceptable. Dance is more adequately understood as consisting of primary media of movement and non-movement by human bodies capable of movement, and music or other auditory accompaniment, plus secondary media of costumes, scenery, and the like.
Notation alone is inadequate to fully explain identity.
Even if it is agreed that notation can capture all important aspects of movement needed in establishing identity, an adequate theory of identity must also explain how acceptable compliance with notation is established, given that absolute compliance is neither possible nor demanded in practice. The establishment of identity of works should be kept distinct from means for production of a work, for evaluation of the interpretation of performers, and for the training of dancers. Both philosophy and the law could benefit from continued careful scrutiny of the nature of similarity in dance in developing this test in the context of dance. Finally, the character of dance as a performing art, with special dependence on unique human bodies, has resulted in a legitimate interest by critics in determining the creative and interpretive aspects of a performance, an interest which is more properly understood as an interest in evaluating the continuing skills of performers and choreographers, as opposed to the proper object of criticism, the directly perceivable aspects of performances. Numerous questions have not been addressed here.