Jimbo,
I agree with your assertion that we should include more rather than less in the definitive index. If someone wants to contribute line drawings, they should be included. If someone wants to include and alternative way of tying, it also should be included. If someone wants to include a history of its use or development or images of it in practical or fun applications, then what reason could we have for excluding any of that?
If this thing starts to roll, I believe it will be many years before the first complaints of 'Information Overload' begin to be heard and in the meantime a great deal of valuable knot information will have been collated into one searchable and peer reviewed place.
You make the point that the OI is too complicated for layperson use and Dave echoes your sentiment
The Overs Index seems like it might be a useful method of categorizing/indexing knots, if the Crossing Points are calculated properly. But is it perhaps too complicated, too confusing, or time-consuming to learn how to do it, such that most people will just ignore it?
This is certainly implicated by the fact that Geoffrey Budworths creation has failed to be taken up over the last twenty years - although the fact that he didn't have the internet and a Wiki, and only indexed a few dozen knots may have had more to do with its failure than the system itself.
In theory, the OI and the Saturation Index are both incredibly simple. In practice however - in the real world - you only have to index a few knots before you start to realise that life within a knot is COMPLEX and a simple two dimensional indexing system will struggle to describe our knots in a simplistic manner. I have only indexed a few knots so far and have already started to unearth questions that will need some thinking about before we can agree some way foreword.
But is that to say that we should abandon the OI because we stumble across some complexities at an early stage? In fact, we should ask - do we even need a web based Encyclopedia of Knots when Google can find just about every knot you want?
I think the answer to those questions is best formulated by looking at a possible situation two years from now. Imagine that a couple of people worked at indexing and entering basic knot info into the Wiki while a couple of others added methods of tying, uses, history, folklore, AKA names, even translating some of the information into other languages. The Encyclopedia of Knots will still be far from complete, but at that point ask - is this thing of any value? Is the OI useful to home in on the small subgroup of knots which might contain the knot I am trying to identify?
Instinctively, I feel the answer to both of these questions is going to be a resounding YES. However, today we have nothing but problems and need something to motivate us towards putting in that work for two years - chicken - egg !!
I also feel that making a tool out of the OI will take us towards needing to understand knots at a more fundamental level, and this I believe is at the heart of establishing the Science of Knotting. If we can do this, then perhaps we can argue a case for the inclusion of the study of knots as part of the school curriculum.
I just have a gut hunch that it is going to be worth the work, so I am going to stick at it. As it takes shape, hopefully others will share my viewpoint and will also start to chip in.
Dave, you raised two specific examples of problems with the OI and saturation. Perhaps it would be best to follow your previous suggestion that this forum be used to iron out issues. To this end, I will start a post for each of the issues you raised.
Derek
