ABOK compacted and extended

General Discussion
1

Hello !
Practical (?) propositions.
Short post, not detailed, and not too structured.
If people are interested I will expand and detail. I have a feeling that some are quite put out by my posts and ideas.

ABOK : only “numbers” and “names” would be retained. Even "names could be dispensed off with. But I am not in favor of that option : easy not to use information needlesly added ( one condition : must not be too “costly” to add) but quite difficult to add ( without error) linked information in a second stage!
so compacted ABOK it is.

Extended : would include all the “new” ( ABOK date of publishing is the reference! for “new”) knots.
That will be further along the way.

No “information” should be weeded out, only “noise”.

Compacted : weeding out of the “doubles” upon the provisions and oulines already stated in my other posts. ( Cans of worms…Tentative defining of knot)

  • Teams of 2 or , better, 3 individuals.

  • One team for each chapter of ABOK ( volunteers on step ahead, sharply, please!) 41 chapters.
    With 40 to 60 persons , each one will have 2 chapters to review
    With 20 to 30 persons , each one will have 4 chapters to review. After that it will probably to “heavy a workload” since 10 to 15 persons entails for each 8 chapters to review.
    Else ( but dangerous! no checking possible for error unless each person make a double,independant,successive review to compare with the first- And one defection will be “costly”)
    1 person /1 chapter. I am not happy at all with that.
    Better do nothing that doing it in a botched fashion!
    What is a professionnel ? : someone doing the job as he can in the time and cost imparted.
    What is an “amateur” ( one who love)?, someone who feel that the job should be done “just right”.

  • For now : no text and no illustration. ( second or third stage if necessary, as I see that ABOK-UCE as only a tool for further “work”.and not as an end in itself. Though it will be a usefull “addenda” to use with the “full” ABOK.)

  • Tools : ABOK, drive, good will, and a “fantastic” software ( free) that I used to use a lot : EPI-INFO .
    Marvellous for data collecting and verification. In fact it is an Atlata CDC and WHO software with immence statistical capabilities of no use here but with characteristics that will make the work tremendously easier and more “secure”. Go and search for it on the Net. If yopu want ask and I will do a ( sorry, long) post about it.
    Quite user friendly I assure you.
    http://www.cdc.gov/epiinfo/ there is a French version of it at http://www.epiconcept.fr/html/epiinfo.html

I volunteer to learn it again and do the .QES and .CHK programming if enough people are ready to work at it seriously.Would be better if a younger brain would do the chore!

  • How to deal with “doubles”:
    First “found” (in the order of the book) got its number retained as “principal”. All its “double” have their number put between parenthesis.)
    All the number of ABOK : 1 to 3854 are reserved, out of bound for the extended ABOK.
    Extended ABOK would begin at 4000.

  • IGKT would have to provide for database space: either an easy to use, free for registered members,upload and download or easy direct download but uploading subject to access via Webmistress.
    Downloading free but : count of download should be kept for each files ( will help appreciate the “need” expressed)

  • IGKT would have to provide for a mean to “suscribe” for a team/chapter. Or else it will have to be done via “private” e-mail.

2

Any knot listing has to have a pidture, to be usefull. No discription is going to be complete without one.
Even if we use a temp picture, there has to be one.

Willeke

3

IMNERHO, any pictures Mr. Ashley hath drawn should be sacrosanct until the copyright has expired and his Estate grants its blessing.

Plus, IMNERHO (In My Not Even Remotely Humble Opinion), a lot of his drawings can be “updated” significantly, given the 21st Century tools we now have.

And Ashley’s annoying tendency to reference backward and forward by name and by number should be cleaned up completely, for the sake of the Children of the Future. This is what Database Programs do best!

Best of all, we can now add the nifty new cordage, like double-braid, Sta-Set-X, Poly-Braid (and this delightful Kevlar kernmantle I’m playing with now), etc., and the splices we can put in them!

But you can check my posts to see how enthusiastically I am in favor of an online “reverence” (thank you, Willeke) to extend (not replace) ABoOK…

Just my 2 cents.

4
Extended : would include all the "new" ( ABOK date of publishing is the reference! for "new") knots. That will be further along the way.
Why "new" vs. "missed"? There is a subset of knots (by some definition of "knots") in [i][u]ABOK[/u][/i], and most knots are not. So we add some ... ?
No "information" should be weeded out, only "noise".
Note that I posted an Errata for the book some months ago (sadly, no one added to this): should those items be acted upon, to correct things?
- One team for each chapter of ABOK ( volunteers on step ahead, sharply, please!) 41 chapters.
If one focuses on [i]practical[/i] knots, the oft' exagerated count of knots in the book is seen to be absurd. "Simplistic claims for ABOK having 'over 3500 knots' are based on the illustration ID #s, many of which don't identify knots, and many knots are illustrated more than once; the number of actual knots, esp. practical ones, is far smaller: e.g., only about 50 each of bends and single-loop knots, and 100 hitches are given."
- How to deal with "doubles": First "found" (in the order of the book) got its number retained as "principal". All its "double" have their number put between parenthesis.)
Hmmm, this leads to an unfortunate consequence that for many of the practical knots, they will be given numbers that don't group them together in the functional classes as Ashley has done in his [i]later[/i] chapters. Sadly, there are a few such knots that only occur outside of these later chapters (odd, this).
All the number of ABOK : 1 to 3854 are reserved, out of bound for the extended ABOK. Extended ABOK would begin at 4000.
Note that there are a couple of #s that have either a letter (#1425a) or I think a fraction "1/2" in them (not sure about this latter, but I think ...). Or at least knots that are versions of ABOK knots be given a suffix number so to attach them to the knot they are a version of? (e.g., "#1010.01")
any pictures Mr. Ashley hath drawn should be sacrosanct until the copyright has expired and his Estate grants its blessing.
Note that Derrick Lewis's (fraud of a "work") [i]Great Knots & How to Tie Them[/i] scans in some of the Ashley images & then spits them out in computer-renderings --the scanning is obvious.

As for improving on his images on account of modern tools, I wonder what
you’re thinking of? (I find much of the computer-generated images to be far
inferior to hand-drawn ones.) In many cases, however, Ashley has done a poor job
of presenting a knot (e.g., putting a symmetric knot in asymmetric halves).

–dl*

5
...has to have a picture
Hello Willeke : in a first time just the stark naked listing of numbers is sufficient work. One can always go to the full ABOK for the drawing needed, or on one of those Web sites with dependable illustrations.( ha! that last one "dependable" : decidedly I have a way for opening can of worms...inadvertently. -). Well sin avowed is half-way to being forgiven as the French saying goes )

But you are right, ultimately each knot must be shown ( photographs and drawings ( wether hand or computer drawn) “in person” or at least a link to the web ( but so much and so fast evolution of things…) provided.

Just accept for the time being to see this “compacted” ABOK as a "preliminary work for further “pharaonic endeavour”.

But first we must learn to toddle, and playing at being a “head reducting jivaro indian” with ABOK seems a good point for starting, after that, promised, we will play at being Michael-Angelo in the Sixtine Chapel.;-).

Come to think of it : I am being too linear in my serial thinking.
Parallels endeavours are perfectly possible, provided that compatibility with other endeavours is in-built since the very beginning of each parrallel track.

An on-line “publishing” would be best for the ease of updating it. I understand your concern seing how well you do your computer drawings.
Friend Frank Charles Brown, the Tasmanian, has a fine way to draw them. I am trying to get him to post on the forum.

While I am in Australia : this is a tangent, but then tangent have one point of contact with the main figure!

A quite interesting book to read on the matter of “arranging” knots in “groups” is :

Charles Warner’s " A fresh approach to knotting and ropework " ISBN 0 9592036 3 X .
I am sure that Des Pawson ( Hi!) will be delighted to provide one copy.

Jimbo’s ( Hi!) warning about copyright must be kept in mind.

Does anyone has legal knowledge here ? Is doing a “compaction” of ABOK “above board” law-wise? ( without the ABOK original drawings and text - save the name ; but that, at least in France, would be considered “not registered or copyrighted” and belonging to “public domain”)

ABOK was state of the art and is a monumental work that must be left intact as such.
But respect do not forbid to built on it or “from” it. In my mind it would rather be an hommage that a detraction

just my 2 cents
If one had 999,98$ to pay for a 1000$ ticket to escape from a dictature, just 2 cents would be worth as much as all the gold of Eldorado. :-) So never despise 2 cents! One never know what difference they will make in the end.;-). Si Jimbo I will keep your 2 cents and other's and one day I will be disgustingly wealthier than even the Microsoft man.
why "new" versus "missed"
Well! err... because! Not a good argument that one, I suspect. Some are really new and some were missed so let us try and aggree to "not included in ABOK" ( whatever the reason)
..posted an errata..
Sorry, must have been before my recent coming to this forum.
...often exagerrated count...
Right. But nevertheless the numbering is there and it is a fact : here to stay. I do not think advisable to do a "cultural revolution" and make tabula rasa of the past.

We (collectively) will have to find a way to “integrate” Ashley view with modifications/adaptations to present time felt needs ( here we are in the subjective and not in the objective it is more a wish than a need may be).

...leads to....later chapter
Here we are aggreed
a couple of#s have either a letter...
Right. But it is irrelevant here since numbers as they are in ABOK would be retained and not "altered). If rule ( first knot appearance get the prize of the number (what ever the formulation of that number) in "bold" and all the "double" having their number retained , but put between ( ) then all the 3854 should be written. If for one reason or another they are not all "written" then they should still be "reserved" and all extension start at # 4000 or #???? provide it leave "intact" the ABOK #. And for the "extended" part of "on-line book" there is all the leeway needed to construct a numbering sequence with or without letters used with the same number for "differentiating some "variation". Question is : should a "variant" be considered a "double". I would rather say "no" just to keep useful "information", too much squelch on the noise and we could loose that.
...computer generated...hand-drawn...
My opinion is that rather that one being exclusive of the other on an "objective" ( what is that? objectivity?:-) manner they could be made "compatible" and "complementary".

It is much more a question of “aesthetic inclination” ( and as such,being “affective” in roots, they are not amenable to logical debate) than of an objective, pragmatical outlook.
If on-line on the Web why not use both, at first. Time and Darwinian forces will tell.
I can tell you that drawing knots is just like drawing an anatomical slabs : not for the first newcomer to that “art” & technic!

I am leaning towards hand-drawn, but then it is only the way I am “wired”. Will not loose one nano-second of sleep on that particular point.

Photographies are needed, some people cannot “see” on a drawing, they are not “calibrated” for doing that easily.

Photo and drawings appear to me the best way. (opinion again and not fact)

Anyway the ABOK drawings are not “copyleft” so they are “out of bound” for legal motives and it is a good occasion to make new illustrations.

just want to add a citation : ( yes I know : usually when some assinine idiot say a bright thing it is a citation! Have already encountered that one!):

“For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean… and wrong.” -
Henry Louis Mencken

6

In the tread: Can of Worms

Given that I do not profess to be a knot expert (or even beginner) by any stretch of the imagination, please understand that I may be throwing yet another worm into this particular can.

However, my particular skills revolve around finding technical solutions to problems, so perhaps I can be of some use here.

It seems to me one possible option here would be to develop a standardised, image based, dictionary via the igkt.net site initially. As I see it, such a dictionary would comprise single entries of a standard, close-up image of each knot catalogued by it’s most common (or IGKT voted) name followed by every known name variation for that particular knot. Entries could also include technical descriptions, earliest known usage, common current usage etc etc.

The entire dictionary could be database-driven which would allow the opportunity for the data, once entered, to be output in a variety of ways. Most useful of all, people could such search on any name variations and they would still find the appropriate knot entry (or entries). Other elements could also possibly be searched upon such as ‘current usage’.

The technology to develop such an online project is currently available on igkt.net. All I would need is the official go-ahead from IGKT officials and a working group to develop it with.

Mel

I would want to add, let us work from both ends to the middle. You scientific inclined people work on the listing of all the knots and add to ABOK, and us, more practicle people work on getting a list of knotpictures and instructions on the web. Whenever we have added some knots you can tell us your information which we then can add to the information on the web or whenever you have some knots ready, we add the pictures and instructions.

Lets asume I put my knots on the web (IGKT site?) to start, you will know that some (or most) of them are in ABOK. If you have worked on the chapters in which they appear. You send a message in which you give for every knot an ABOK number, a (sugested) official name and all the information more you want to share. When this info is added to the knot, more images and names can be added from other people who do have the rights to the drawings/pictures of the knot.

It can look like:

Star Knot, ABOK 0881, textual information picture instructions on how to tie more names other languages

Unfortunately I do not have the information handy to make above example clickable.

And when you click on one of the underlined words you get a page with either text, a set of pictures, as many as needed to recognize the knot, or a how to make this knot page. This last can also hold several of those pages. I know that both Dan in Alaska and I hold a page with how to tie the starknot, I would like the people to be able to go with one click from one page to the next and to as many others as available.

I think the ‘more names’ and ‘other languages’ part is easy to understand. I would like those names to be search words too, like if you come to the site and you search for “sterknoop” you will be directed to the starknot.
When we do get to the stage where there are several knots with the same name the search may come up with a listing of several ABOK numbers, each with a small picture of that knot.
The search function should work on the numbers too of course, and maybe on ‘useage’ too, but that can be worked out when we have a start.

And if the guild is willing and able, we can start publishing as soon as we have a few knots working. That way we can add pictures to the knots for which you have worked out the additional information and you can add information for the knots for which we already have pictures. I think all information should be held in a central place (the server hosting the guild site?) with copies in other places to be able to move in case of server failure.

Willeke

7

Hi Willeke!
Good constructive post in my opinion. Parallel threading rather than serial.
But we are still

  • surveying the ground
  • tentatively dabbling before a first tentative first rough draft. Finalized architect draught.

It is uicker to do the illustrations than doing “the text” to go with.
Regards.

Charles / Nautile

8

We are still talking about how to do it. But we have been talking about how to do “This” for at least as long as I have been meeting other knottyers, (and I have been a member of the guild since early 90’s,) and we still have done nothing.

So I propose getting started and adding all along.

I see a need for a knot list with the knots people use, practical as well as decorative, where we can send people when they ask for help. Now we have to send people to the bookshop or to a lot of small knot listings where all people are repeating each others work.

If we make an internet, freely accessable, knotlist, we will not get paid for our work, but we do have the advantage that all the work is available from the moment we think it is usable.
Many people just want a short discription on when to use the knot, a set of instructions on how to tie it and a name to label it by.
We want to try to get all knots, and in all their versions if posible, with good detailed instructions, and scientificly right desciption so this knot can never be taken for an other.

So if we start with making a listing of those knots we have available, so people start coming to us when they want to know more about knots, we can add the extra information when available.
That is one of the great things about internet. You can add on and on and still the system works.

I know that texts can take a great deal of time. I try to make textual instructions for every knot as well as pictural, and even these simple instructions can take more time than drawing the pictures.
But we can share the work between us. The more people join in, the more work we can get on the web. I guess that you and me are just the starters, and that either of us will be long gone before the complete work is going to be finnished, if ever.
Think only about all the versions on the Turk Head Knots. There is bound to be someone who is willing to spend a lot of time on getting those included, but in fact that family can be expanded till there are more of those then there are stars.

So let us start with a workable set-up which will allow us to add.

Willeke

9

Right your are ( in my opinion) Willeke.
Best regards.
Charles/Nautile

10

Hi all,

Just been reading this thread for the first time - can someone let me know how far you have got with developing an on-line database - something I have been playing about with at http://knots.roughian.com - I don’t want to keep on with this if it’s already been done! On the other hand, if it would be of use to you here then it’s available.

Ta

Ian

11

Hello Ian,
I have done nothing on a data base, and I guess we are still in the ‘we should do it’ stage.
I would like to start with the knots we have available on internet. In my case, I have a website on which I give instructions on how to tie the needed knots. I will happily add those knots, and all I have made for them, to your database and help you illustrate knots which are in my part of knot tying. That is, decorative, and mainly multi strand work.
You can find my knots on my site, http://knopen.ismijnhobby.nl/tables/used_knots_table.html for the knots
and http://knopen.ismijnhobby.nl/tables/braid-text_table.html for the braids.
Almost all are already translated in my own language, Dutch, and the rest will be translated as soon as I find the need. So they can be used in both languages if wanted.

If you want to correspond with me directly, willeke at knopen dot ismijnhobby dot nl is my normal e-mail.
(I will edit this e-mail address away after a few days because I do get enough spam as it is.)

Willeke

12
We are still talking about how to do it. But we have been talking about how to do "This" for at least as long as I have been meeting other knottyers, (and I have been a member of the guild since early 90's,) and we still have done nothing.

So I propose getting started and adding all along.

I see a need for a knot list with the knots people use, practical as well as decorative, where we can send people when they ask for help. Now we have to send people to the bookshop or to a lot of small knot listings where all people are repeating each others work.

If we make an internet, freely accessable, knotlist, we will not get paid for our work, but we do have the advantage that all the work is available from the moment we think it is usable.
Many people just want a short discription on when to use the knot, a set of instructions on how to tie it and a name to label it by.
We want to try to get all knots, and in all their versions if posible, with good detailed instructions, and scientificly right desciption so this knot can never be taken for an other.

So if we start with making a listing of those knots we have available, so people start coming to us when they want to know more about knots, we can add the extra information when available.
That is one of the great things about internet. You can add on and on and still the system works.

I know that texts can take a great deal of time. I try to make textual instructions for every knot as well as pictural, and even these simple instructions can take more time than drawing the pictures.
But we can share the work between us. The more people join in, the more work we can get on the web. I guess that you and me are just the starters, and that either of us will be long gone before the complete work is going to be finnished, if ever.
Think only about all the versions on the Turk Head Knots. There is bound to be someone who is willing to spend a lot of time on getting those included, but in fact that family can be expanded till there are more of those then there are stars.

So let us start with a workable set-up which will allow us to add.

Willeke

Willeke, back in Sept 2005, you wrote that you had been pushing for an indexing system since the early 90’s.

I guess that no matter how motivated folks are to start such an index, if the tool to create it does not exist, then there will be no progress, and I presume there has been no progress?

Purely to evaluate the value of a Wiki as a tool for this purpose, would you consider visiting the pages at http://igkt.pbwiki.com/Knot%20Index and seeing if either of these two indexing systems could be put to use in fullfilling the aims you described.

I appreciate that this Wiki is not formally sanctioned by the IGKT, but if the tool works, then the IGKT can either take it over, or create one for itself in the longer term. However, there will be no progress unless someone takes the time to put a few knots into the index and then reports back with their feelings on the Pros and Cons of this tool for the purpose of creating the frequently discussed and much needed online index.

NB, the Wiki is fully searchable, so if someone has a part name or an AKA then it can be found without having to tediously scan through every knot sequentially.

Derek

13

Derek,
I do agree with using the wiki for that purpose, and have said so several times.

The only reason I have not worked on the wiki yet is that I have so many things to do that I have not had time to work out how to handle the wiki. (I am sure it is simple but I am not of the generation that just does such things, I have to take time for it.)

Willeke