...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