Author Topic: Naming with Knots  (Read 8742 times)

Brian_Grimley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
Re: Naming with Knots
« Reply #15 on: September 24, 2005, 02:54:49 AM »
Willeke,

I think your suggestions for the content of the "database" helps meet several aims expressed for this work.

One aim was to attract people who have interests where the knots they use are of secondary importance to them. If there is a catagory for each specific knot called applications, then a  way of accessing the information appealing to these people could be designed.  By applications, I mean how the knot IS used; NOT how we think a knot can be used!

For example, it seems that a mantra of canal boaters is: "I'm not interested in knots ... I just use them to moor my boat." Yet, on their forum, ocassionally mooring knots are discussed with the usual confusion over names and types and different suggestions. If the "database" contained several knots with information under "application" about their use in canal boating, an access to that information could be written geared to canal boaters. A boater says to his buddy: "Try here, quick access to what you want to know ... Oh, I didn't know that ... very interesting!" Very appealing, I think!

A second aim was to promote a proper knot name that hopefully will become universal. Attract people with different specific interests to the site and then to the knot information for what they want or need and they see: Name and Other Names. Perhaps, a proper name can become universal.

Built into the module for a knot there could be a "See Also" link to lead the canal boater to other knots and the rest of the "database".

Similarly, a access for archaeology could be built if the information was there. Why, even an access system for people interested in slinging and building slings could be built! (appealing to Willeke's interest in slings! :))

Cheers,
Brian.

Ps. "So it is not one or the other, it is all." - Willeke

Brian_Grimley

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 92
Re: Naming with Knots
« Reply #16 on: September 24, 2005, 05:59:11 AM »
Jimbo,

You said, "what if we were to decide, say, that the bights, loops, etc. represent the "letters" of our "language", and the knots comprised of them would then be our "words"?  

Ah, now I understand your confidence that the organizational structure would be a taxonomy.

Nautile posted a "Hommage to Frank Charles Brown" in the thread, "Can of worms:naming knots". Nautile posted some correspondence with Frank Brown on his yahoo site. When I read it, Frank Brown seemed to have ideas along these lines and referenced other works. What do you think of Frank Brown's ideas?

I have had fun with knots by undoing the last "tuck" of an established knot and seeing which knot was left. Then, l could "retuck" the running end in different ways to see which knots (in ABOK) were created. It was, at times, very interesting! It is sort of exploring a part of your taxonomy from the bottom up (and down one).  :)

I can understand that knots could be organized in this way. But, how to approach developing a set of rules or axioms or algebra that distinquishes between real and unreal knots leaves me cold. Any ideas?

Lots of questions!

Cheers,
Brian.

Willeke

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
  • knopen . ismijnhobby . nl
    • Willeke's knotted Ideas
Re: Naming with Knots
« Reply #17 on: September 24, 2005, 10:58:54 AM »
If the data-base has a search function as has this forum you can search for any word at the site. If we can make a double search function one level for the different headings of the "chapters" and the other for any word, we can have a simple find what you want for every body.

Willeke
"Never underestimate what a simple person can do with clever tools,
nor what a clever person can do with simple tools." - Ian Fieggen

Writer of A booklet on lanyards, available from IGKT supplies.

Jimbo

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 114
  • Happy Knotting!
Re: Naming with Knots
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2005, 11:14:42 PM »
Quote
Ah, now I understand your confidence that the organizational structure would be a taxonomy.

Actually, that's all a taxonomy is.  "...Division into ordered groups or categories..."  I made it a URL link the first time I used it, to point to the definition.

I was just trying to condense a lot of what many of us had already written.  Nautile tried to get "into the bights" of the thing a little early, IMO, but that's the can of worms he opened nonetheless.

Quote
What do you think of Frank Brown's ideas?

Well, I find his pixtures dizzying.  If I had to learn knots by them, I'd "tie a lot" ;) and you'd know me as "Mr. Double Shamu"!!  And I object to his use of the arrow to indicate the SPart, and an eye to represent the tag end.  That's functionally inconsistent, but easily fixed.

Of course, in our mythical "whatzit", I'd definitely like to see his pix with Willeke's with Nautile's notations, with Ropeworks' quaint antique-looking drawings, with whomever's whatever, and with photographs too.  Once we get to the point of populating the database, each item (knot, bend, whatever) could have multiple images associated with it.  There is no need to constrain those lists, so if "Knot A" had, say, 50 illustrations and "Knot B" had but six, both could be fully represented, with "growing room" for all.  Such is the power of modern database technology!

Speaking of which, Mel, our illustrious Webmistress, with the constellation of stars beneath her Username, hath spoken:

Quote
Given that I do not profess to be a knot expert (or even beginner) by any stretch of the imagination, please understand that I may be throwing yet another worm into this particular can.

However, my particular skills revolve around finding technical solutions to problems, so perhaps I can be of some use here.

It seems to me one possible option here would be to develop a standardised, image based, dictionary via the igkt.net site initially. As I see it, such a dictionary would comprise single entries of a standard, close-up image of each knot catalogued by it's most common (or IGKT voted) name followed by every known name variation for that particular knot. Entries could also include technical descriptions, earliest known usage, common current usage etc etc.

The entire dictionary could be database-driven which would allow the opportunity for the data, once entered, to be output in a variety of ways. Most useful of all, people could such search on any name variations and they would still find the appropriate knot entry (or entries). Other elements could also possibly be searched upon such as 'current usage'.

The technology to develop such an online project is currently available on igkt.net. All I would need is the official go-ahead from IGKT officials and a working group to  develop it with.

Mel


(sigh...  I think I'm in e-love! ... Pardon me while I go re-read that!)

I'd say we have all the cards, we just need to start playing poker!

Quote
I have had fun with knots by undoing the last "tuck" ... It was, at times, very interesting! It is sort of exploring a part of your taxonomy from the bottom up (and down one).

I became "hooked" on knots by stupidly kinking my pajama drawstring around a frob on the bedpost at age 2 or 3.  Droopy PJ's are a significant[/b] motivator to learn how to untie a "Double Shamu" like that!  Sorry, that fit the "bottom up" and the "down one" parts too well to leave by!   ;)

Quote
I can understand that knots could be organized in this way. But, how to approach developing a set of rules or axioms or algebra that distinquishes between real and unreal knots leaves me cold. Any ideas?

I'd say we need to get our Webmistress involved first.  She is absolutely invaluable as a guide to the technology we'll have to use, even if it's just "for starters".  If we already have the tools to make a prototype, why not start?  If Mel merely keeps her mind and the structure of this "database" open, we can adapt as we go.

She'll want data, though.  We all still need to find some good pixtures!!  I can't help but speculate that CWA's pix are the Very Best we can hope for for "Picture #1" of each knot.  "Picture #2" and so on could be whatever, from whomever; but (at the risk of deifying CWA ... Dan) I really do think his pix deserve the First Prime spot.

The only decent suggestion I have (parroting oh-so-many others herein) is to have each knot and all it's pix/drawings in its own "bucket", then use the Indexing capabilities of the DBMS to take care of your Volga Boatmen vs. Hairy Lumberjack nomenclature differences.  That's what (I think) Willeke meant, too.  The newbie looking for a knot could enter whatever name they think it's called & only the Index would be touched until they found what they were looking for.  The only other thing I'd like to see would be a "top-down" tree view, just to give the grazers (as opposed to browsers) the opportunity to explore the knots by category.

But it's still exciting, isn't it, to see this idea growing legs! ? ! ?

TTFN.

Jimbo
Thank you all, for everything.  As of 6/6/6, I have changed my password to a random string (which I forgot), thereby assuring that anyone posting as "Jimbo" in the future will NOT be me.  Good luck!!!

nautile

  • Exp. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 181
  • G'day to you from France
Re: Naming with Knots
« Reply #19 on: September 28, 2005, 03:49:26 PM »
ERRATA:It is not five but THREE types of knot ( sorry for my mistake, misreading/interpretation of a picture )


I wrote :
Quote
in the Quipus that seems to be comprised of only :

- FIVE type knots ( their combining may very well have "specially attributed meaning", therby extending the "letters". You must add SPACE as a "letter" not only space as such but its LENGHT.
- ONE "main cord"
- TWO sort of cords branching on the main : "upper cord" and "lower cord"
- On these upper and lower cords may be attached "secondary cords"
- plus use of COLOURS . (We use colours code everyday : e.g think of the coding of ropes, or of condensators or resistances)
Leave you to compute all the "arrangements that are "possible"




THREE types of knot, one of which use 8 modalities : figure of -eight knot, half knot, and "the long knot" (in fact the same knot as the "franciscan's"! with one 2 to 9 turns.
1 unity is the figure-of-eight knot ( so as not to be mistaken with the half-knot.
Half knot count tenths or hundreths.
There is a section for unity ( the furthest from the main cord., a section for tenths, one for hundreths ( the nearest from the main cord.
The upper cords are the sum of the lower cords ther are attached to.

Use of colours : the QUECHUAN language ( Incas) recognize 24 colours.

On these upper and lower cords may be attached "secondary cords"  and there can be secondary cords on secondaries!

Even the way the rope is laid is taken on account : turning right : propicious things ; turning left ( sinistra - sinister) ominous things.

The system is credited with 1536 different "information" signs ( greater than the Mesopotamian cuneiform or the Egygtian hieroglyph.)

The numeral content is considered as "known"
BUT
There is an extra-numeral content that is not really know as yet. ( seems that the Quechuan language has characteristics that help to be an easily encoded language : paucity of words,  and provison to modify ( modulate?) a given term with "particles" and "suffixes".

An aside ?

In West Africa, at the beginning of the european colonisation it was quite "ordinary" to find "african quipus" : strings with knots used to account or to "tell".

Few are left in museum for one reason : as as soon as their use was at an end they were mandatorily destroyed by burning.
Just as if we were to burn the calendar  day leaf as soon as the day is ended.
Those remaining are rarely exibited : not really "spectacular" enough.