Knot Index

[DerekSmith]

I would like to start putting some knots into the Wiki Knot Index so that I can reference them from the Overs Index as it builds.

It has been stated many times in this forum that there is little point in using the ABOK numbering system because it is wrong at a number of levels and to use it would be to perpetuate these errors.

So, if we are to take the opportunity to start afresh and build on the work of Ashley and others then we need to consider how to number the knots.

Could I suggest that we adopt one directive  KISS (keep it simple stupid).  This has a number of rammifications but the most significant of these is that we only classify knots in their most rationalised forms - i.e. all 'spare' overs and unders are cleared out before classifying, thereby removing a lot of pseudo grouping of so called 'look alike' knots.

My first question then is - should we start the index with subcomponents of knots - i.e. the cord itself OI-0:0 or the loop OI-1:2?  Personally I think that as these are not knots, they should not be indexed as such and therefore I would err on the side of proposing that the index starts with the simplest of knots - the Overhand OI-3:6

Unless then there is considerable objection to this and because we are in need of action more than consensus, I will innitiate the index with the Overhand OI-3:6 as knot No.1.

If you agree with this, then what should be Nos 2,3,4 etc.

If you do not agree, then could we have an alternative proposal to start work on.

[DaveRoot]

Derek,

Props for jumping right in and taking action!  

KISS is definitely a wise principle to follow.

I agree that since a cord and a loop are not knots, there's no point in indexing them at this stage.  Better to go for the biggest bang in terms of "Wiki usefulness," and then any refinements or extra details can be added later, if desired.

As far as #1, #2, #3, etc., this isn't intended to imply any type of ranking, right?  Therefore, at some point the numbering is going to become arbitrary, which means that maybe it's not so important how the knots are numbered.

However, it's always possible that eventually someone will feel that knot x should fall between knot #22 and knot #23 (for example), leading to knot x being designated as knot #22.5 or knot #22b.  Even Ashley fell victim to that problem (e.g. ABOK 1034.5).

So here's a proposal, FWIW (For What It's Worth):

Instead of referring to the Overhand Knot (OI-3:6) as Knot #1, how about referring to it as OI-3:6?  This does several things.  

First, it provides a reference to which numbering system is being used (such as when we refer to "ABOK 1034.5").

Second, it avoids the brain-cramping decisions of which knots should be in which order.

Third, it prevents the issue of trying to squeeze a knot between existing numbers (e.g. ABOK 1034.5).

Fourth, this naming convention might make it easier to recall which knot is being referenced, because "Knot #37" has no intrinsic meaning, but "Knot OI-8:16" provides some information to potentially help call the particular knot to mind.  Even if we don't specifically remember which knot is OI-8:16, we know that it is somewhat more complex than the Overhand (OI-3:6), for example.

Fifth, the concept of counting Crossing Points and calculating the Saturation of a knot might be a source of confusion until people become comfortable with it.  Using the OI-3:6 naming convention will cause people to become comfortable with these concepts much more quickly through constant use.


An obvious issue is that several knots might have the same number of Crossing Points and the same Saturation.  Therefore, perhaps the Overhand Knot could be designated as OI-3:6-1, for example, meaning that it was the first OI-3:6 knot to be included in the Wiki Index.

Dave

[DaveRoot]

Personally, I like the idea of the Knots Wiki as a place to try out ideas for indexing and cataloging and so on.  Being outside of the Guild, it's a good "unofficial" scratchpad, and if it proves its merit then it can at some point be incorporated as an official Guild resource.

One thing that I would like to see is for the Knots Wiki to become a resource of clear information.  That almost seems like a self-evident goal, but consider the Guild forum and the rec.crafts.knots forum and other knotting forums.  What tends to happen is that one person will make a statement, then someone else will say that the original statement is wrong, then another person will counter with a different viewpoint, and so on.  This is natural human discourse which allows us to clarify issues and share information and learn new things.  Nothing wrong with that.....in fact, it is *vital* to be able to share different viewpoints in this way.

BUT....  Consider that all of the debating and the wrangling and the disputing (and even bickering at times) creates confusion in the minds of people who come to the forums looking for some clear information and answers.  Sometimes I wonder if "novices" or "seekers of knotting information" have scanned through the forum a bit and become disenchanted by the many competing viewpoints in virtually every topic, because it gives the impression that no-one can agree on a clear answer to anything!

This might be unrealistic, but consider that at the present time the Knots Wiki is essentially a blank page which will become whatever *we* put into it.  If we can make a conscious effort to build the Wiki as a resource for clear information rather than just another place for more debates, then it will be much more valuable to all seekers of knotting information (IMHO).  Obviously we will not all agree with everything which is posted to the Wiki, but can we try to use the Guild forum (or some other existing forum) for hashing out our views, and keep the Wiki "innocent" of these necessary debates?  Perhaps that is too much to hope for, or too unrealistic, but if it is a worthwhile goal then now is the time to make that conscious effort, while the Knots Wiki is still young and free from being "muddied" by competing viewpoints.

Again, hashing out different viewpoints is necessary.  However, for the person who is looking for some useful information, it is very confusing and frustrating to wade through debate after debate where nothing seems to get resolved!

Just a thought...  

Dave

[DaveRoot]

Derek,

In browsing around the Knots Wiki to get a feel for the layout, I noticed your picture for the "Double Bowline" (http://igkt.pbwiki.com/Bowline%20Family).

I agree with you that the prefix "Double" is generally used for knots which have two loops (as in your picture), and in that sense your picture can be considered as being a Double Bowline.

But here we run into a "naming collision," because there is another Double Bowline which is sometimes referred to as the Double-Knotted Bowline or the Round Turn Bowline (ABOK #1013).  At my website I have listed all of those names for this knot (http://www.Layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm#1013), and Roo's website lists it as the Double Bowline (http://www.geocities.com/roo_two/doublebowline.html).  I found this version of the Double Bowline at several climbing sites, as well as elsewhere in the WikiWorld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bowline).  However, I did find your version at one site (http://www.cabelas.com/information/cabelasfieldguides/KnotLibraryCampingKnots/DoubleBowlineKnot.html).

What's the best way to resolve such naming collisions in the Knots Wiki?


Also, your Double Bowline is the same as a Triple Bowline where the 3 loops are sized differently (http://www.Layhands.com/Knots/Knots_TripleLoops.htm#TripleBowline).

Just curious how these types of issues should best be handled in the Knots Wiki.

Dave

[DerekSmith]

Dave,

You have done a lot of work here and I must start by saying that I concur with everything you have said.

-------------

On your thoughts about using the OI as the numbering system - excellent suggestion for all the reasons you state.  This is the sort of clear forward thinking that will take the initiative forward in leaps and bounds.  I will cease my attempts to create what amounts to nothing more than a confusing duplex system and focus on using the OI as the principle numbering system.

The demi numbering you proposed (e.g. OI-3:6-1) could also use letters to denote agreed facets like chirality or safety or ...  this will perhaps become more obvious as use of the system progresses and others begin to propose their own ideas.

------------

On your thoughts re keeping the Wiki for results and the forum for discussion, again full agreement.  The two tools are ideally suited to compliment each other in this way.  In fact another Wiki I use has a built in forum to allow direct discussion.  However, if we place a prominent link on the wiki to the Chit-Chat forum at least this will be efficient one way linkage.  Perhaps the Webmistress could consider how to facilitate easy linkage from the forum without us having to post the wiki link in each discussion thread pertaining to Wiki issues.

One additional facet that the Wiki offers, is that if forum discussion fails to resolve issues, then the Wiki can accommodate differing, even contradictory, viewpoints to be constructed.  Sometimes this can aid resolution, sometimes it may remain necessary to simply publish both (all) perspectives in an attempt to allow the reader to realise the complexity of the issue.  Sometimes honesty in publishing opposing viewpoints  is actually of greater value to a global understanding.

--------

Finally - It had to happen sooner or later !!

 
What's the best way to resolve such naming collisions in the Knots Wiki?

You have cited a good example of collision, because the contention is legitimate rather than simply an issue of one faction being 'Precious' over their use of a name.

Hopefully, as the forum steps through the process of resolution, we will be able to extract valuable pointers as to how to approach these problems as we continue to build the index.

Could I then start by addressing your question rather than attempting to do what we are all keen to do i.e. resolve the naming issue problem you have posed.  Perhaps we could start another thread to specifically address the question of what should these knots be called, while this thread continues to consider how to break the problem down.

[DerekSmith]

I feel that the exercise of starting a separate thread to explore the rationalisation of collision is already showing results.  Not the results we hoped for, but probably the results we should have anticipated.

In Norfolk, there is an old joke/saying  "Well, if I was a wantin to go there, then I wouldn't be a startin from here"

Applicable to many aspects of life, in this case it means that we are starting by trying to address the wrong problem.  Removing the collision is a small problem overshadowed by a much larger problem that people cannot see a way around, and which prevents them from considering the detail of the collision problem.

So far, the thread has taken a rapid move away from the origional question into two themes;

--  Should we Could we make these changes - This theme is founded on the logical arguement that any change will have no impact within our lifetimes, if any, ever.

--  That the names, lore and confusion that we presently enjoy is good and is part of the joy of knotting and that regular knot users are happy with the status quoe.

Perhaps in order to proceed we need to step back and consider the hurdles impeding change and reaffirm the reasons for the need for change in order to formulate a route forward.

Probably little more is to be learned from the test thread other than it is now likely to degenerate into entrenched factions.  Any repeat attempts to clarify other knot groups are likely to follow the same path so to stop going up that deadend, we need to look for a better starting point.

Any thoughts?

[DaveRoot]

Here are some thoughts on the naming issue:

-- Given the wealth of books and websites on knotting, the "knot lore" is not going to disappear even if a new naming convention of some kind is implemented.

-- The question of whether or not a new set of names will "catch on" or "take hold" is really not the issue, because the answer to that question requires skills of prediction which none of us possess!  :-)

-- The question (as I see it) is really whether or not it would be valuable or beneficial to have a set of names which makes better sense than the "random" names that have accumulated over time.  For example, imagine that somewhere down the road the IGKT has an official Knots Index with new improved names for certain knots (the details of what constitutes a "new and improved" name are not the issue at the moment).  Would we benefit from being able to discuss knots using "standardized" names which cause no confusion?  I would have to say that the answer is "yes," since reducing confusion benefits everyone.  At the moment, if someone posts a comment about the Double Bowline, for instance, we have no idea which knot he or she is speaking of.  We would need to ask for clarification in order to determine whether it's the Double-Knotted Bowline (AKA Round Turn Bowline) or the double-loop-Bowline-which-is-tied-in-a-doubled-rope.  Over and over we would need to go through that same exercise every time someone mentions certain knot names.  Imagine if we could simply mention the name of a knot and everyone would know exactly which knot it is, with no confusion and no need for time-consuming clarifications!  More on that in a moment.


The job of coming up with sensible knot names will not be easy, and there is not likely to be 100% agreement from everyone on some of the choices for a new and improved name.  That's life.  But is it a worthwhile endeavor?  Will the end result be valuable and beneficial?  Granted that change in general is usually not an easy or fun process, but how can it not be valuable and beneficial and worthwhile to reduce confusion with a more sensible and standardized set of names?


The first objection which comes to my mind concerns Derek's description of the double-loop-Bowline-which-is-tied-in-a-doubled-rope.  He pointed out that it should be called a Bowline-on-the-Bight, which makes perfect sense to me.  After all, a Figure-Eight Loop is also referred to as a Figure-Eight-on-a-Bight, because that's what it is.  It's a Figure-Eight knot which is tied in a long bight.  Therefore, if we tie a Bowline in a long bight then it is reasonable to call it a Bowline-on-the-Bight.  BUT...  My mind reels at the obvious confusion it will cause if some people begin referring to the double-loop-Bowline-which-is-tied-in-a-doubled-rope by using the "Bowline-on-the-Bight" name!

So here is a proposal for how a new standardized naming system might be accomplished without adding confusion:

A. When a knot is added to the Wiki Knot Index (WKI), some effort is made to give it a "sensible" name.  At this point I'm not advocating any method of choosing a sensible name.  The idea here is that an "official" name is given to the knot, and other common names for the knot can be listed in the appropriate section in the WKI.

B. Inevitably some people will have strong disagreement with a name which was chosen for a knot, and this can be hashed out here in the Guild forum.  Granted there won't always be a total consensus...that's life.

C. Here is the crux of my proposal:  The official name of each knot will have a standard prefix.  For example, I have already pointed out that if someone mentions the "Double Bowline," we really have no idea which knot it is until we are given a description of it.  BUT... Imagine that somewhere down the road the WKI is robust enough to begin fulfilling its purpose.  At that point, if anyone mentions the "WKI-Double-Bowline" then we will know exactly which knot it is, with no confusion whatsoever!  No clarifications or descriptions will be needed, because the name of the knot includes the standard prefix which indicates that the Wiki Knot Index name is being used.

(The "WKI" prefix is simply for illustration.  Perhaps someone can think of a better prefix.)

Notice that this proposal has some interesting benefits:

-- Imagine a group of climbing buddies who prefer the term "Flemish Loop."  They can continue to use this term among themselves if they wish, because it doesn't cause them any confusion.  But if they post any questions or comments about that knot to a wider audience (e.g. the Guild forum), they can choose to call it the "WKI-Figure-Eight-on-a-Bight" so that their meaning is clear.  We have not tried to force them to change their comfortable knot names, but they might find themselves adopting the "WKI" name over time.

--  With this proposal, the "double-loop-Bowline-which-is-tied-in-a-doubled-rope" can safely be renamed to something like "WKI-Bowline-on-the-Bight" without creating a naming collision regarding the traditional Bowline-on-the-Bight.

-- If the outcry against new "sensible" names kills that idea, this proposal works equally well with any of the common knot names which might be chosen to be the official WKI knot names.


Anyway, that's my proposal, which can be refined and fleshed out as needed.

Dave

[DerekSmith]

Dave,

Excellent proposal, I am 100% with you on it.

Everyone gets to keep their familiar names for the knots, yet you enable the creation of a unified standard, (like a universal language that can be used to translate any language into another) alongside all the 'Trade' names, 'Culture' names etc.  Doubtless, there will be issues cropping up as the Index progresses, but at this stage it is a perfect solution without the need for compromise in any direction.

Perhaps at this stage, we could start to formulate a list of 'Knot Elements' which can then be drawn upon to 'Name' the knots in some standard manner.  Alongside the WKI, we will need to build this short list of Knot Elements together with clear description of what the element means and guidance on how to use it in Knot naming.  Knots then could be described as assemblies of components or modifications of certain fundamental knot cores or hybrids of more than one knot core.

For example;

Sheet bend would be one of the knot 'cores'

Double wrap,
On the bight,
On itself,
Double (as in double loop) etc. would be elements which specify embellishments or conversions to the core knot

With an agreed lexicon of descriptors and an agreed syntax we should be able to create names which are descriptive of the knot configuration to a reasonable degree.

As per your previous suggestion, the forum could be the area for proposing, defining and agreeing terms while the lexicon is constructed on the Wiki - could be the Wiki Knotting Lexicon - WKL ?

In anticipation that this will take flight, I will start the WKI and WKL pages (although of course any contributor can do this should they choose).

I have a feeling that the contributing members can anticipate quite a challenge over the coming years.

[squarerigger]

Hi Derek and Dave,

I agree that it would be an excellent idea to get started - how about naming the parts, actions, chiral versions, etc., of a simple knot or hitch?  A good friend of mine has been reading these posts (Hi Jimmy!) and he thought that an overhand knot would be a good start and I will throw in the half hitch as the next one - can we come up with some way of defining those structures?

My suggestion for the overhand knot, FWIW, is this:

Overhand Knot:  A crossed and tucked turn in a line (CrTkTn) starting from either side of the line.  When started with the turn on the right-hand side of the SPart, with the WEnd ending on the RH side of the line, the result is a RH/Cr/Tk/Tn.  Similarly when starting on the LH side, the result is a LH/Cr/Tk/Tn.  When tightened, hard to release.  Acts as a stopper knot or terminal to a line to prevent fraying.  Base for some decorative knots (list?).  Also known as: (long list)

To clarify some terms, in a general section, applying to all knots (this needs to be MUCH larger!) we need something like this:

Orientation:  All transitions, intersections, and actions are as seen from the knotter; X-axis positive away from Knotter; Y-axis positive towards knotter's head, Z-axis positive to right of knotter, starting at 0 at waist level or thereabouts; RH - on or toward the knotter's right side, LH - on or toward the knotter's left side.
SPart:  The standing part of the line, about which the working end rotates or on which the working end does work; generally the part of a line that takes the load.
WEnd:  The working end of the line, that part which moves in forming the knot.
Line:  A flexible structure capable of supporting an undefined load other than its self-weight, manufactured from organic fibers or inorganic wire, fiber or crystalline material.
Tighten:  The action of pulling the WEnd and/or the SPart of a line such that the structure closes on itself or on the object about which it is turned or tied.
Transition:  The change seen after a line has been maneuvered into place.
Intersection:  The meeting of a line or strands with another line or strands.
Action:  Physical motion of part of the line (or loop?)
Turn:  The transition of a line, along its own axis, through 360 degrees, beginning waist level, positive X and negative Y, with X-axis positive away from the knotter, Y-axis positive to the knotter's head.
Crossed:  An intersection of two lines or parts of the same line, loop or other structure, such that the two parts are in contact but not passing one through the other.
Tuck/Tucked:  The action of passing a line or loop over and under the same piece of line, so as to rotate the tucked part by 360 degrees around the X-axis using the Y-axis and Z-axis.
Tied/Tying:  The action of maneuvering the parts of a knot so as to bring the parts together to form a functional object in the line.
Knot:  A structure formed in line so as to perform a function, create a decorative object, join elements together or (?)


There is plenty still to do, perhaps too, a lot of simplification, but this may form a starting point - your thoughts?

SquareRigger

[KC]

Very Nice; i do kinda prefer Standing Tension Part trapping Bitter End for the imagery.   i like to imagine the knot in loaded working mode, rather than slack tying mode when i lace; to strategize what i'm doing when, for what working purpose.

To me, both ends of line are working as equal and opposites under load.

i think Sheetbend is a core lacing.

Also, Turn, Round Turn, Crossed Turn and Backhand Turn.  all are reversible when pulled / empowered by opposite end to get same mechanichs, except the Crossed Turn, that when pulled on opposite leg becomes Hitch if laid properly.  A Crossed Turn gives extra Friction but still slides some; nicely laid Hitch pinches itself off.  Round Turn so much better Mechanics than Turn, a full trap and a choke, so as to deserve seperate billing.   4 uniterupted turns - Coil (thanx o Knude one); another notable intense change to be seperately recognized.  

Covers Overhand, Anchor/RT $ 2 half hitches, Clove/Tautline, Cow/Timber, some varied friction hitches respectively; in working class knots.

[squarerigger]

Here is a simplification already suggested in a PM - instead of talking of crossings and intersections, let's just use the same term and, if we need to, explain something more about the particular crossing.  So, strike the word intersection above and insert the word crossing - clearer?

SR

[DaveRoot]

Thanks, SR and KC!

I'm thinking that when people come to the Wiki Knots Index (WKI) looking for information, sometimes they will want to quickly find that information and get out because they have other things to do, while other times they might want to browse around and learn all kinds of cool new things about knots.

It has been mentioned a few times on the forum that some people like words and some people prefer pictures.  Therefore, if the WKI can be structured in such a way that it is easy to get some basic information "at a glance" but also be able to explore deeper when time permits, I believe that this approach will benefit the greatest number of people.  These are the same basic design issues which every Web developer faces, and the implementation can make a big difference in how useful the website is.

Perhaps SquareRigger's, KC's, and others' ideas for a glossary can be compiled into one page (or a set of pages organized alphabetically, for example), and then another page (or set of pages...) can be compiled with the same essential information in picture form for those who like pictures.  Personally, I would prefer to see a simple picture of a Loop or a Bight or a Crossing Turn, etc., for a quick "at a glance" understanding, and then be able to go to the word-oriented glossary for a deeper understanding occasionally.  I'm not so concerned about whether the pictures are hand-drawn or computer-generated or computer-animated or photographed, as long as the essential information can be quickly grasped when I'm short on time (which seems to be a constant state these days!).


[Edit: Jimbo brought up an interesting point on the "Guild Mission" thread, and now I'm re-thinking my comment on animated images.  We can't print out an animated image and be able to study and practice the knot offline or "out in the field/yard/boat"!  This also highlights the fact that if we can print out a page of simple pictures of such glossary items as a Loop, Bight, Crossing Turn, etc., as well as a page of wordy explanations, then we have a handy quick-reference to use for ourselves or to show to others as needed...]

Dave

http://igkt.pbwiki.com/Knot%20Index

[DaveRoot]

Another thought...

We are aware that knots can act differently in different types of rope, but many/most people don't know from rope.  "Polypropylene, Polystyrene, what's the difference, it all sounds like Greek chemistry to me!"  

The issue of which knots to use with which types of rope adds a level of complexity when trying to teach how to tie knots.  Therefore, it might be a good idea to have a page which shows photographs of a representative few knots (the Bowline is an obvious example) in various kinds of rope.  This will make it clear why some knots should only be used with some types of rope, and it will help educate people about how to recognize various kinds of rope.

Dave

[roo]

http://igkt.pbwiki.com/Knot%20Index

I kinda doubt the IGKT would want to lend its name to Derek's private website.  I could be wrong, but if I am, I'd also be surprised.

[DerekSmith]

Hi roo,

You are quite right, The International Guild of Knot Tyers are quite sensibly standing back and watching how this Wiki thing is progressing before making any judgments as to how valuable it might or might not be for the Guild to start its own Wiki.

Of course, should they eventually decide to, all the information and content on the evaluation Wiki will be made freely available to them.  TPTB have made it clear that they would appreciate the Guild logo not to be used on the Wiki and this is also quite understandable, and has been respected.

Having the Wiki open to all knotting enthusiasts is actually quite valuable, because it means that no formal body can dictate what content is placed into the Wiki.

Two things however I will clarify.

First it is not Derek's Wiki.  Yes I started this free Wiki to see if it could be useful as a tool to help progress the many issues the Forum contributors were raising.  But by openly publishing the password on the forum, I made the Wiki open.

Second, the igkt in the Wiki name  - igkt.pbwiki.com  It could just as easily stand for 'In Good Knotting Times' or any other four words that match this acronym.  The Wiki does not attempt to 'Pass Off' as the International Guild Of Knot Tyers and this is presumably why TPTB have made no comment about the Wiki name.

The purpose here is to quite simply see if any headway can be made into a set of problems which have been chewed over by contributors for a long time without ever having resolved anything via the Forum medium alone.  Hopefully the combination of Forum and Wiki can see this change.

How do you feel about the Wiki as a tool?