The Ashley Book of Knots INDEX Project, 2008

[PwH]

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?

 

Well Dan , having seen the comments re the ABOK.pdf file I think the problem may have been solved already- I haven't seen the pdf yet but if anyone knows where to find it .......?

If it doesn't come to light soon then it's back to plan A but I'm reluctant to re-invent the wheel if it's already out there in a pdf file

Cheers,

Peter

[Dan_Lehman]

Well Dan , having seen the comments re the ABOK.pdf file I think the problem may have been solved already
- I haven't seen the pdf yet but if anyone knows where to find it .......?

If it doesn't come to light soon then it's back to plan A but I'm reluctant to re-invent the wheel if it's already out there in a pdf file

That's an unfortunate affect of some well-meaning meddling, eh?   

Look, (1) the pdf file does NOT really fully address the issue, as in making the
conceived improved Index, we have a good chance to segregate wheat from chaff,
as I noted above (i.e., put in parenthesis all citations of term that are really no more
than that--which will add nothing from reading them),
(2) the pdf file is HUGE, and not so broadly available and obtainable to all (not by
my phoneline, methinks), and
(3) hardly all of those who could benefit from the Improved Index are going to be
using computers vice hardcopy Ashley anyway, for various reasons.

So at most one could cast this pdf conjecture as a case of the Perfect being an
Enemy of the Good, and I'd like to avoid that.  (Besides, it gives a nice reason to
go more carefully through & into ABOK than one is likely to do otherwise,
finding all sorts of entertainment!)

I say, stop waiting for Godot,
let's Go!

 

[PwH]

(2) the pdf file is HUGE, and not so broadly available and obtainable to all (not by
my phoneline, methinks), and
(3) hardly all of those who could benefit from the Improved Index are going to be
using computers vice hardcopy Ashley anyway, for various reasons.

So at most one could cast this pdf conjecture as a case of the Perfect being an
Enemy of the Good, and I'd like to avoid that.  (Besides, it gives a nice reason to
go more carefully through & into ABOI than one is likel to do otherwise,
finding all sorts of entertainment!)

I say, stop waiting for Godot,
let's Go!

 

Ok I'm convinced. Here's my first offering, put up for comment and amendment by you all. Took a long time to get this far, but I hope it makes sense-----

Preliminary ABOK index project entry for the ?Sheet Bend?.  This index should be regarded as a ?Wiki? style entry, peer reviewed and editable by all.

Knot Name and #number for main entry shown in bold type: e.g. Sheet Bend #1431

Primary forms of the knot including odd or trick tyings that result in the same knot shown thus : page no.#ABOK no.    i.e. ppp#aaaa

Secondary forms  eg double sheet bend, weavers knot etc. where the search  term is used shown thus : (ppp#aaaa).  Other secondary forms may be found where the search term is not used. Any such found can be added later.

References to the knot in other entries shown thus : [ppp#aaaa]

References to the knot in the general text, page no. only shown thus: {ppp}

Where text and diagram occur on facing pages shown thus: pp/pp#aa.

Where several #no.s on a page refer to the same knot shown thus: pp#aa/aa/aa/aa/

Combinations of the above may be used where appropriate.

Entries ordered by page number. Glossary and Index entries shown thus <ppp, ppp.>

Sheet Bend #1431: 9#1(2), {11}, 16/17#64/65/66/67[68], 18#72/78, [35#177], [46#253], [54#335], [55#336], (64#402), (78#485/488), (79#490/492), [188#1034.5], 222#1223, [258#1410], (259#1418), [260#1424/1425a], 262#1431(1432)1433(1435)1436(1437)(1438), (263#1440), (264#1449), 265#1461, 266#1437, 270#1497/1501, 272#1522/1523, {273}, 274#1550, [316#1900], (324#1988), 324#1990, 326/327#2005, 412#2562,
<597-Barbers Knot, 602-Sailors Knot, 610-Double SB, 613-Left-hand SB, 615-Right-hand SB, 616-SB, 618-Toggled SB, 619-Triple SB, Tucked SB.>

so if this takes off, how do you propose we store and make available the results?

[PwH]

P.S. now working on the Bowline, and will continue on with the BIG SIX unless someone beats me to it!

[DerekSmith]

Could I offer one amend to the sheet bend list

(262,1434) the double sheet bend.

Derek

[TheTreeSpyder]

That is a lot of energy and time, Thanks!

i like to track a Bowline as a sheetbend to self to form fixed eye.  Then tracing how the forces change under the same load as the hitch becomes a half hitch etc.

[PwH]

Could I offer one amend to the sheet bend list

(262,1434) the double sheet bend.

Derek

Sure thing Derek, how did I miss that ?? here 'tis 

Sheet Bend #1431: 9#1(2), {11}, 16/17#64/65/66/67[68], 18#72/78, [35#177], [46#253], [54#335], [55#336], (64#402), (78#485/488), (79#490/492), [188#1034.5], 222#1223, [258#1410], (259#1418), [260#1424/1425a], 262#1431(1432)1433(1434)(1435)1436(1437)(1438), (263#1440), (264#1449), 265#1461, 266#1437, 270#1497/1501, 272#1522/1523, {273}, 274#1550, [316#1900], (324#1988), 324#1990, 326/327#2005, 412#2562,
<597-Barbers Knot, 602-Sailors Knot, 610-Double SB, 613-Left-hand SB, 615-Right-hand SB, 616-SB, 618-Toggled SB, 619-Triple SB, Tucked SB.>

[PwH]

That is a lot of energy and time, Thanks!

You're welcome TS, and thanks for all the help 

i like to track a Bowline as a sheetbend to self to form fixed eye.  Then tracing how the forces change under the same load as the hitch becomes a half hitch etc.

mmmm- don't quite follow your train of thought here TS, could you  explain a little more ?  Thanks, Peter

[turks head 54]

[/quote]so if this takes off, how do you propose we store and make available the results?[/quote]

As an answer to your question Dan I could make a webpage on Blogger
to list the new and imporved index.

Th54

[TheTreeSpyder]

i think this would be a good one for The Knot Wiki Project

[PwH]

I've put the first entry on the new wiki set up by Derek Smith on http://knotcyphers.pbwiki.com/ABoK-WikiIndex - see what you think--

[Dan_Lehman]

Here let me reformat PWH's fine articulation of his selected notation for the Improved Index.

name #aaaa ::> Knot Name and number for main entry: e.g. Sheet Bend #1431

pg#aaaa ::> Primary forms of the knot including odd or trick tyings that result in the same knot.

(pg#aaaa) ::> Secondary forms  e.g. double sheet bend & weavers knot, where the search term is used.
Other secondary forms may be found where the search term is not used. Any such found can be added later.

[pg#aaaa] ::> References to the knot in other entries.

{pg} ::> References to the knot in the general text, page no. only.

pg/pg#aaaa ::> Where text and diagram occur on facing pages.

pg@aaaa/aaaa/.../aaaa/ ::> Where several #s on a page refer to the same knot.

Combinations of the above may be used where appropriate.

There were at the bottom of the msg. above some citations using the ' < ... > ' delimiters,
for at least some occurrences within the Glossary!?

"Entries ordered by page number"  = "ordered by prg.# ?"
(How could it differ?  Well, of two competitor's, they might be on same pg, one later/earlier;
of tied in 1st occurrence, separated in later one.)

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

Looks like y'all have something brewing!

Wish i had more time.

i think it would be more useful; and gear to a much larger audience (as a prototype); if there was some visual aid(and in a table).  Being a knot cypher wiki; i think it should have at least a knot cypher on the page if not a picture.

If you are real hard up; you can use any of mine Basic Knots  or..  More Simpleness or anything else; even just as place holders to lay out the format etc.

i always wanted to continue all that stuff; and the Flash Animations; but when the Hard Drive crashed; i lost a lot of Flash projects; including the pre-maid pieces of lacings; t assemble them and blocks of code to make knots; now i have to find time to start alllllllllllllllllllll over!




This is what i was talking about de-scribing knots off of similar constructions and then understanding the parts and their mechanical functions better.  Sheet Bend to Bowline.  Now i more properly see and name the Sheet as converting it's Hitch into a Half Hitch to make Bowline/Sheet Bend to self to form eye.  Then also make similar sense out of Anchor to self to form eye is Strangle/Noose whatever; Clove to self is Buntline; then try to understand the mechanics in them; by compairing properties between similar lacings.

[PwH]

Here let me reformat PWH's fine articulation of his selected notation for the Improved Index.

name #aaaa ::> Knot Name and number for main entry: e.g. Sheet Bend #1431

pg#aaaa ::> Primary forms of the knot including odd or trick tyings that result in the same knot.

(pg#aaaa) ::> Secondary forms  e.g. double sheet bend & weavers knot, where the search term is used.
Other secondary forms may be found where the search term is not used. Any such found can be added later.

[pg#aaaa] ::> References to the knot in other entries.

{pg} ::> References to the knot in the general text, page no. only.

pg/pg#aaaa ::> Where text and diagram occur on facing pages.

pg@aaaa/aaaa/.../aaaa/ ::> Where several #s on a page refer to the same knot.

Combinations of the above may be used where appropriate.

There were at the bottom of the msg. above some citations using the ' < ... > ' delimiters,
for at least some occurrences within the Glossary!?

"Entries ordered by page number"  = "ordered by prg.# ?"
(How could it differ?  Well, of two competitor's, they might be on same pg, one later/earlier;
of tied in 1st occurrence, separated in later one.)

 

Thanks Dan , it's a lot clearer in this format. I shall apply this to the wiki as well.

The '  < ... >  ' delimiters include all the references I found to the knot or other forms in the glossary and index just for completeness and in case following those takes you in some new direction ..... If there are more that I missed please let me know.


Ordered by page number - could have differed by putting all the primary forms first followed by secondary forms , then referential entries and so on - I felt that would mean too much 'to-ing and fro-ing' for someone wanting to look at all the references, so opted for 'by page number' instead. It's simple enough I think, to pick out only those you really want from the current order? 

Cheers, Peter H 

[Dan_Lehman]

Ordered by page number - could have differed by putting all the primary forms first followed by secondary forms , then referential entries and so on - I felt that would mean too much 'to-ing and fro-ing' for someone wanting to look at all the references, so opted for 'by page number' instead. It's simple enough I think, to pick out only those you really want from the current order? 

Oh, thanks, I see.
Hmmm, would one really want to have to hunt through the arguably not-so-obvious
differences in notation in order to locate the most (only, in most purposes!) meaningful
occurrences?  I think not.
I think that the principle uses of the Index will be to learn about the entity in a direct,
obvious sense; only someone doing some more pedantic, who-knows-what-purpose
search will care that in prg. #1537 (say) there is a side comment "like the Sheet Bend"
or "... along with the Sheet bend", methinks.  There is some merit to having the key
citations forward; and maybe to having a predicatable, set order of all, which I think
goes some way to help the different classifcations of citation be recognized.  (For
otherwise, it is they--the sorts of references--that come in a back'n'forth order.)
I.e., giving the information thus:
Here is detailed info directly:  #47, #276, #277, #1820
here is more coincidental mention: ....
here is ...
I think is a good presentation, got essentially by reference-type ordering.
Ordering by pagination seems more mountain skyline peak'n'valley jumping.
--and having to visually discriminate between graphic symbols '[','(', '{', ... .
(This is one advantage to the Im.In. over pdf Searching:  presenting
a value assessment of the citation!)

How do others think an Improved Index will look?

??