What about Suber knot tying notation? Why it isn’t considered?
Here my efforts:
* Let an object = Obj.
* MT(RP, Obj:CW), RS(T=T.1)
* MT(RP, Obj:CW), RS(T=T.2), L(T.1, T.2)
* MV(E.RP:R) → CO(RP,SP), MV(RP^:R, SP^:L)
* Let an object = Obj.
* MT(RP, Obj:CW), CO(RP, SP), CO(SP, RP), MV(RP^:R, SP^:L)
These codes tend not to be very user-friendly and have a hard time accounting for variances in dressing or non-rope objects. Standard drawings or depictions handle these issues much more easily.
I know, but it is very difficult to understand if two knots are the same; drawing a knot is not so easy 
Equivalency in knotting can sometimes be a hazy issue that codes alone cannot determine. For example, a Blimp Knot could be considered to be in some senses equivalent to a Gnat Hitch if you insert the hitching object in the right spot. Codes would likely fail to pick that up. Sometimes just playing around with both specimens in real cordage can help explore similarities and differences.
knot coding is not an exact science (neither programming), and there are no compiler to check the syntax, but Suber notation it’s the only notation on hand-made knots… better than noting… it’s open so can be adapted… I’m stunned that no one is interested or even mentions it.
I’ve seen a few different codes on the old IGKT forum. They tend to get neglected because not many people want to learn a language used by a vanishingly small number of people especially when the utility of the code is rather limited.