The Ashley Book of Knots INDEX Project, 2008

[Dan_Lehman]

It occurs to me that a worthwhile project to undertake in 2008,
whose completion could come fairly quickly,
is to construct an IGKT Improved Index of ABOK,
in which:

 1.  all citations were made (only) in terms of illustration numbers (not pg.#s),
and
 2.  all citations were checked (deleted/added, as appropriate).

Currently, one gets a page number from the Index and must then read
through the page hoping to find the particular item--this is a needlessly
bothersome task, when most pages have their text referenced by about
ten or so image/entry numbers (which numbers are in other ways part
of our knotting parlance).  There are also cases where the reference
is wrong entirely or by degree (e.g., one page off), and sometimes I
think we'll find references that should be made yet are not (that's a
value judgement--but, hey, it's us who value such things!).

Community checking/vetting of the III should be easy, since one is
following such space-focused citations.

--dl*
====

[squarerigger]

Hi Dan,

I take it this is using the ABOK British version after amendment by IGKT's Geoffrey Budworth?  This is the one with Bernard Cutbush's frame on the cover jacket, reprinted, copyright 2000 by G. Budworth.

SR

[Dan_Lehman]

No, we'd use every version (and esp. the older, which should be most
in need of help).  It isn't that much of a change with the revised one(s),
is it?  (Where one's copy is okay/fixed, one merely nods; otherwise,
there's some annotation worth noting.)  In every case, there's need
for the by-fig.#-vs-pg.# change.

--dl*
====

[Tom]

Sounds like a wholly commendable project to me - sign me up!

[PwH]

A Good Idea methinks- with 476 members online and maybe a third of those with an ABOK ? I'm guessing here ! Only a few pages each to do the job! Will you direct volunteers to take discrete sections and thereby avoid duplicated effort? I'll do a few if you let me know which pages.

Regrds

Peter H

[Dan_Lehman]

Only a few pages each to do the job! Will you direct volunteers to take discrete sections and thereby avoid duplicated effort? I'll do a few if you let me know which pages.

Not so much section- but Index-directed, methinks!
I.e., the primary check & change is on what IS there, in the Index;
and the simple task is to verify that (implicit in the looking), and to convert
the page reference into an image-# reference.

The harder part, but one we should accept as information arises in even
haphazard use of the book, is to supplement the Index with any missed
citations, such as they're found.  But a rigorous check of this, which to my
mind entails deliberate reading straight through the text and repeatedly
checking whether index-able items are in fact indexed, isn't something
I'm proposing here.  But, why not accept any such suggestions as they
arise; the goal being a more useful Index, not caring to clinging to just
its historical state (which in any case is preserved in numerous copies).
(Actually, having a #-based Index should help with any effort to improve
the overall citations, as some citation for "p.173" might become equated
to "#nnn4, #nnn5" and later be enlarged to cite also #nnn9:  if one had
only a page reference, finding the information in one spot might stop
one from looking further; but with particular image-#s, any information
elsewhere will stand out in need of similar citation.)

So, to commence, either of you two (et al.) can just post a notice here
"I'm starting with 'A' ", and the next reviewer can volunteer for another
letter (Index "section").  (wow, "B" is a whopper!)  Completed lists for
each letter can be posted here for others to verify (and maybe expand).

--dl*
====

[DerekSmith]

When I tie knots, I can do it one of two ways -- the hard way or the easy way.

The hard way is to tie the knot in my minds eye.  A challenge, but sometimes necessary when my 'twiddling string' has been appropriated for some other task.  The easy way of course is to take up a piece of cord and tie the knot in physical 3D and hold, rotate and inspect it in physical reality in my hands.

Does this have anything to do with the proposed project at hand?  Well, perhaps it might act as a propmt to consider if there is an easy way and a hard way of using ABoK. because I think there exists an easy way which eliminates the problems many of us have encountered and which Dan has highlighted here.

As I have discovered, the hard way (but none the less a most enjoyable way) of using ABoK is to buy a copy and try to read it through a number of times and to use PostIt notes to annotate and keep corrections.  Over time and practice you might learn to flip automatically to the section that today you want to refer to, but chances are that like most of us you will be restricted to using the quite limited index which without question could do with an overhaul.

Or you could use the easy way -- buy a copy of ABoK.pdf and unlock it.  Once you have done this, you will never need the index or PostIt notes again, because the whole book, word by word is indexed through the search facility.  Better still, you can add your own personalised bookmarks, as many and as detailed as you care for and you can make as many notes or corrections as your heart desires and of course search any of these as well, should the need arrise.  A 100% index that is always up to date and 100% correct.

Unless I am very much mistaken, the physical book with all its anachronistic issues and mistakes will fairly quickly become something you pick up for the love of it - a bit like the pleasure of tying a knot in ones minds eye.  But for day to day reference I am confident that paper index is dead and the pdf 100% 'body index' will prevail for all practical uses and it will not matter that the paper index is wrong or lacking.

But then, the world of knots teaches me to take nothing at first sight and regularly surprises me, so maybe I will be wrong on this too.  I will watch with interest.

Derek

[Fairlead]

Derek,
ABOK is already in Searchable PDF format and available on the Internet

Gordon

[DerekSmith]

Hi Gordon,

Yes, that is exactly what I meant when I said :--

Or you could use the easy way -- buy a copy of ABoK.pdf and unlock it. 

Derek

[TheTreeSpyder]

The original pdf i have figured opened up to be able to add notes; but; it was also not produced with the OCR function on; so it can't be searched.

The 2nd version of same, was maid with the OCR engine on, can be searched; but the encryption is 128bit; and not as easily sidestepped.

It would be nice to have both functions, search/ editability of the Optical Character Recognition, and able to highlight and note; but presently have to run them side by side or some other scheme to be able to do both.

[turks head 54]

Where could you find a PDF copy of ABOK?

TH54

[Dan_Lehman]

Instead of seeing the initial results to the indexing project from Tom & Peter,
I feel a lull has beset their interest?!  Surely the As and Bs could be knocked
off in a month plus.

What's up?

 

[oceanplats]

well well ,I did have to go look in the bookcase,so i pulled the tome out,the smells of
salt
tar
blood
and someone has a project going on?
god luck mate ,got my 72 bible in 75.
So most of you here havnt been to sea?
Ash did!!

[Dan_Lehman]

The expected results to be seen here can l00k like this:

ADJUSTABLE BEND, 266#1472
ADJUSTABLE BOWSTRING KNOT, 32#152, 188#1030
ADJUSTABLE GIRDLE, x331=>330#2031 [text entry on 330, image 331]
ADJUSTABLE HITCH 32#157, x70=>71#431, 304#1800
ADJUSTABLE JAM HITCH, 325#1994
ADJUSTABLE LOOP, 187#1021 {et al. here, and elsewere?}
Adjustable swing, 76#468[NOT really], {128#726 really!), 590#3833
Against the lay, 157#854 [this MUST occur elsewhere!]
Alston's BOWLINE KNOT, 186#1015
Alston's FRENCH SHROUD KNOT, 277#1570
Alternating knots in lanyards, 136#764?
Alternative way of sticking a SHORT SPLICE, 429#2647
AMERICAN CRINGLE, 467#2848
American whipping, 546#3444
...

---------

Note that I kept the pg.#s; maybe they should be omitted (here,
at least)?  Note also that I found some mis-citations (wrong pg#),
which I've marked with a prefix 'x' on the pg.#.  And one citation
was missing (got only via indirect reference), which I've put in
delimited by '{ }' curly brackets.

Some cases suggest that a more helpful Index can be made:
where some citation points to a place that only refers to some
other place where the actual information is given--e.g., 32#152
for the Adjustable Bowstring Knot, which refers one to the later
place, for #1030.  Perhaps primary citations (where information
is given) should be put first, and subsidiary ones are put within
parenthesis).

--dl*
====

[Fairlead]

So most of you here havnt been to sea?
Ash did!!

Having been to sea is irrelavant - I served 40 years in the RN - yes I slept in a hammock for the first 9 too - but I don't suppose I used more than a dozen knots professionally in all that time.

Gordon