Weave Tags
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
   
Author Message

Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:10 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

i went ahead and opened up the magemaille theory discussion in lorraines stickied weave theory thread... no need to continue to hijack this one.. although, narrina, i'd love it if we could get a definition of what a family is and what a sub family is to you.. either here or in the other theory thread.

i know you're busy, but i've been waiting to see what your plans are for the tagging system for many months now..


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: January 21, 2004
Posts: 1061
Submissions: 75

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 6:37 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Again, I've managed to miss this thread up til now. The topic of 'ways to make variants of a weave' is another topic I wrote about last year when I was in Italy. I'll get that posted later, when it's not 12:30am. Might help with the tagging job.

-phong



-- CGMaille tutorials now hosted here at MAIL! --

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:03 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

sakredchao wrote:
what family is jpl? what family is the mobius interaction?

yes, ultimately any explanation will have to come from narrina on this..
i am not saying anything needs to be changed, but i would like to know the why of things.


Well, JPL is clearly a Persian, and not even a Spiral at all - as my experiments with JPL, and JPL3x(1.5 to 3) show, if they're deconstucted by removing one ring layer. Basic JPL is a three-layer HP2-1 (I know, in practice HP2-1 isn't seen in the wild [except as seam or as JPL] due to being unstable on its own). Same is valid for JPL5 (Xn) and up, as others have already shown. But as JPLs are usually perceived in the community as spirals due to the workflow when making them (and the weave flow if the ar is chosen too high Very Happy), it really won't hurt too much to add the feature tag Spiral to them.

Moebius as single entry is another matter - it's somewhat 'anchorless'. So I would grade it as European as they're TE interacting, with feature tag moebiused (or mobified, not mobbed please Surprised).

Ahem. What about the many weaves currently residing in Hybrid? Are they classified by now? All? What do we intend to do with the few anchorless ones that resist against being classified?

BTW: Somehow I managed to miss this thread as well 'til now...

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: January 21, 2004
Posts: 1061
Submissions: 75

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 2:58 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
Well, JPL is clearly a Persian, and not even a Spiral at all - as my experiments with JPL, and JPL3x(1.5 to 3) show, if they're deconstucted by removing one ring layer. Basic JPL is a three-layer HP2-1 (I know, in practice HP2-1 isn't seen in the wild [except as seam or as JPL] due to being unstable on its own). Same is valid for JPL5 (Xn) and up, as others have already shown. But as JPLs are usually perceived in the community as spirals due to the workflow when making them (and the weave flow if the ar is chosen too high Very Happy), it really won't hurt too much to add the feature tag Spiral to them.


Bolded emphasis mine. Zili, I know you've made that argument in the past, and I've reminded you in the past that weave theory is not done by looking at what a weave would be if you started adding/removing rings. It's done by looking at what the weave *is*.

Admittedly I don't have experience with the higher-order JPL's, but for plain JPL3, yes, it is a spiral weave, that has TE and AE connections. (I myself didn't see the AE connections until just now, so was wondering "where's he getting Persian from", but they are there) So I suppose that would make it a spiraled (attribute) Persian (family) chain (form) weave.

ZiLi wrote:
Moebius as single entry is another matter - it's somewhat 'anchorless'. So I would grade it as European as they're TE interacting, with feature tag moebiused (or mobified, not mobbed please Surprised).


Mobius' are spiraled, unextended TE's. Unextended in that they aren't lengthened into a chain, rather each eye occupies the same space (take that, Heisenberg) so it remains a unit. So it would be a spiraled (attribute) European (family) unit (form) entry.

ZiLi wrote:
Ahem. What about the many weaves currently residing in Hybrid? Are they classified by now? All? What do we intend to do with the few anchorless ones that resist against being classified?


Hybrid entries are there because they combine connections of different families, or because the creator/weave admin couldn't figure out the connections to decide where to place them. The vast majority of weaves do not contain one single connection type. Heck, HP3-1S5 deserves to be in Hybrid, because it has both Persian and Euro connections; the only pure HP3-1 sheet is sheet 6. The sheer number of entries that combine connection types I think is an excellent reason to stop thinking in terms of Euro/Persian/Japanese families, and use the attribute tagging system.

-phong



-- CGMaille tutorials now hosted here at MAIL! --

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:42 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Phong, we seem to agree basically - I just hadn't a deeper look into the tagging system yet. So what I called 'feature flag' Spiral in my post, would be (attribute) Spiral, yes?

But how do we manage the Hybrids where it's not easy to decide which family membership is predominant - or have these same rank, so that e.g. Persian Dragonscale is tagged (family)European, (family)Persian, form(chain) - and all is well?

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3060
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 4:59 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

ZiLi wrote:
But how do we manage the Hybrids where it's not easy to decide which family membership is predominant - or have these same rank, so that e.g. Persian Dragonscale is tagged (family)European, (family)Persian, form(chain) - and all is well?

-ZiLi-


One may use as many tags as nessecary. No tag is 'predominant'...

Depending on how the 'display' of these tags turns out, Family tags may be displayed first. Or in a different location. Or not... That will come down to testing.



Joined: January 21, 2004
Posts: 1061
Submissions: 75

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 5:05 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Yeah, they can be tagged several times. Euro, Persian, TE, AE, chain, not-really-Dragonscale-at-all, whatever is applicable.

-phong



-- CGMaille tutorials now hosted here at MAIL! --

Joined: July 23, 2006
Posts: 2277
Submissions: 97
Location: Standish, Michigan, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 7:06 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

kodiak wrote:
although I don't care for using "Magemaille".....sounds like a weave name...


That would be because it is a weave name. I used it as the family name for that group for lack of a better one. However, I am not at all opposed to finding another name for that family, and have in fact been considering it. Would "Puesdo-European" or simply "Mage" be preferable over the name "Magemaille"?

sakredchao wrote:
narrina seems to be basing the family definition on the first step away from the 2-1 chain. (j3-1, not j2-1... e4[trinity?], not e2.. hp3, not the unstable hp2 interaction that shows up in http://www.mailleartisans.org/weaves/weavedisplay.php?key=100 )

am i getting closer, narrina?

narrina seems to have chosen a model which uses the simplest stable weave


Yes, that is more or less what I'm doing. I'm using 2-1 Chain as the control for which to evaluate the relationships of the other weaves in regards to the question of what-comes-from-what for family placement and identification. Magemaille and European 4-1 (head of the European family) are closely related, but more in the way of "siblings" than the "parent-child" weave relation, hence the family split.

sakredchao wrote:
if "byzantine" is just as valid a search term as "persian", why draw that line?


Byzantine is a subfamily of European and will be tagged as such. I haven't included what all will fall under the subfamily tags because I'm still identifying them and double/triple checking them to make sure before posting them.

lorraine wrote:
Nárrína, what do you think about tags for "sandwich" and "cage"? They would both be special cases of captive rings. Sandwich like in Celtic and Helm weaves and cage in CIR, Captive Hilt, etc.


I've been wondering about them also. Especially after recently re-reading some of Tess's articles. I think a good argument could be made for their inclusion.

sakredchao wrote:
narrina, i'd love it if we could get a definition of what a family is and what a sub family is to you.. either here or in the other theory thread.

i know you're busy, but i've been waiting to see what your plans are for the tagging system for many months now.


Sorry about that, when I started working on weave relations/organization I found that some weaves just didn't fit with the family they had been placed in and wanted to be sure of it before posting anything about them.

To me, part of what is needed in a family is a logical, structural cohesiveness within that family. For example, Boxchain, Byzantine, and Dragonscale, are all considered European weaves and all can be traced back structurally to European 4-1, the head of that family.

When I see a weave that, despite having a similar connection type, when traced back does not structurally fit with that family then I set it aside and look at it more closely to see why it doesn't fit, where it does fit, and if there are others that fit under it and, if so, how.

This is what I did with Magemaille, the connection type is similar to European 4-1, but not quite the same and it cannot be traced back structurally to European 4-1, but, instead, to 2-1 Chain in the same way the European 4-1 traces back to 2-1 Chain. So, I set it aside. I then found that underneath Magemaille could be placed: Silesia Superior as a variant and Magus Weave as a subfamily with its own variants of: Magus Chain, Magus Apprentice, Magus Hexastaff, and Magus Staff.

Spiral, while an important ring interaction, lacks cohesiveness as a family. Much of what is under it are better attributed to other families (often European and Persian and some even directly under 2-1 Chain) and others just don't make sense as to how they are related to each other. It's too much of a hodge-podge and almost as bad as Hybrid.

Those that are the heads of families and subfamilies are the "weaves" that are actually true weaves, underneath them are a slew of variants and modifications.


ZiLi wrote:
Moebius as single entry is another matter - it's somewhat 'anchorless'


Exactly. It's very like the "h" in Irish. In Irish, "h" is not a letter, but a sign of operation. Both the mobius ball and the "h" change the pronunciation/behavior of the letters/rings around it but is not a weave/letter on its own.

ZiLi wrote:
But how do we manage the Hybrids where it's not easy to decide which family membership is predominant - or have these same rank, so that e.g. Persian Dragonscale is tagged (family)European, (family)Persian, form(chain) - and all is well?


I'd tag it as:

Family: European, Persian; Subfamily: Dragonback; variant; form: band

(It's to wide to be a chain and to narrow to be a sheet.)



Insistence is futile.

We are the Quartz, lower your shovels and surrender your rocks. We will add your gemological and mineralogical distinctiveness to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is rutile.

Handmaden Designs LLC
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Handmade Artists Shop
Author Website

Joined: July 11, 2010
Posts: 78
Submissions: 1
Location: Cave Junction, Oregon, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:00 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

DL stated something interesting about the posibility of new families (http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?p=210352#210337) we would have to distinguish between Persian/Euro, Persian/Japanese, and Euro/Japanese as the "hybrid" families.

There is mention of Magemaille in there as a Japanese/Euro hybrid and the base of that family of weaves. As Trinitymaille is a Euro/Persian hybrid. IMHO Narrina I think the hybrid classification should stay but in the tagging it should have the three basic "hybrid" families (Euro/Persian, Euro/Jap, Jap/Persian). IDK maybe I am overthinking it a little too much but it seems to me that the separation of Magemaille into its own family would be more of a headache due to having to separate Trinitymaille and the basic Jap/Persian hybrid into their own families.


we all walk to the same end, no matter what path we follow

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3060
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:09 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Hexenkind wrote:
DL stated something interesting about the posibility of new families (http://www.mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?p=210352#210337) we would have to distinguish between Persian/Euro, Persian/Japanese, and Euro/Japanese as the "hybrid" families.

There is mention of Magemaille in there as a Japanese/Euro hybrid and the base of that family of weaves. As Trinitymaille is a Euro/Persian hybrid. IMHO Narrina I think the hybrid classification should stay but in the tagging it should have the three basic "hybrid" families (Euro/Persian, Euro/Jap, Jap/Persian). IDK maybe I am overthinking it a little too much but it seems to me that the separation of Magemaille into its own family would be more of a headache due to having to separate Trinitymaille and the basic Jap/Persian hybrid into their own families.


I fear you're completely misunderstanding what I was getting at... But then, like I said, I was tired, and I'm not certain what I was get at myself...

Moving on to the Hybrid 'family'

'Hybrid' was a generic catch all term invented to classify weaves that belonged to multiple familes.
In the future, we will simply be able to say "Persian and European"
They will show up in searches for either. And are thus, truely Hybrid.



Joined: March 3, 2002
Posts: 4378
Submissions: 79
Location: tres piedras, new mexico

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:11 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

hybrid is not an issue. kill the tag. kill the label. diediedie.

if a weave has japanese and european chracteristics, tag it with both.

"hybrid" is a part of 2.0 that i will not miss.

i have thoughts on the theory things mentioned here, but i'll quote and reply in the theory thread later tonight.


PSA: remember to stretch.
3.o is fixing everything.

Joined: January 21, 2004
Posts: 1061
Submissions: 75

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:12 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

There's nothing European about Magemaille. There are no TE connections, as there are no eyes. It's Japanese, 'possibly' Invert. I'd say more Japanese, since nominally all the connections are orthogonal.

Magemaille and Euro4-1 might be related visually, but not constructionally. Nor is Magemaille the simplest version of anything; it's a bolting-together of 1-1 chains. (I call 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 chains "1-1 chains", I guess others call them "2-1" chains) So Magemaille is a descendent of the simple 1-1 chain, which is the simplest chain form of the Japanese family.

I'd also strongly against adding a 'band' classification. If something is self-limited in 2 dimensions, as Persian Dscale is, it's a chain. It might be a wide chain, yes, but it only extends in 1 direction. If something can be freely extended in 2 dimensions, it's a sheet. Regardless if it's made as a narrow sheet or a wide sheet. If it can be extended in all 3 dimensions, it's a cube/block/etc. There's no need to add a 'band' designation.

And if it doesn't extend in any dimensions, it's not a weave. Wink

-phong



-- CGMaille tutorials now hosted here at MAIL! --

Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 3615
Submissions: 149
Location: Germany, Herxheim

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:31 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Phong: I deem units (the true ones that are not only defined as small segment of some weave that's stable on its own by pure chance) as quasi zero-dimensional, as these are usually, apart from themselves, not expandable further, in no dimension, except by bolting.

Narrina: About Mage (I omit 'maille' anyway, as being redundant if used as family name): I somewhat hesitate to accept this as weave family anchor, as obviously others do as well. We should have a closer look into the issue before incorporating that, whether there's need to do so at all. For me Magemaille (this time the weave called so) is a jap with slight euro smell... But you may try to convince me, by giving some other, more convincing examples.

-ZiLi-


Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Ep Fper MAl Ws$ Cpbsw$ G0.3-6.4 I1.0-30.0 N28.25 Ps Dacdejst Xagtw S08 Hip

Human societies are like chain mail.
A single link will be worth nothing.
A chain is of use, but will break at the weakest link.
A weak weave will have the need to replace weak links.
A strong weave will survive even with weak links included.
-'me

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3060
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:34 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Phong wrote:
There's nothing European about Magemaille. There are no TE connections, as there are no eyes. It's Japanese, 'possibly' Invert. I'd say more Japanese, since nominally all the connections are orthogonal.


One can use the same argument to claim Trinity as a solely European weave, as well...

So, that reminds me... Why is it also Persian again?



Joined: January 21, 2004
Posts: 1061
Submissions: 75

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:35 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
Phong wrote:
There's nothing European about Magemaille. There are no TE connections, as there are no eyes. It's Japanese, 'possibly' Invert. I'd say more Japanese, since nominally all the connections are orthogonal.


One can use the same argument to claim Trinity as a solely European weave, as well...

So, that reminds me... Why is it also Persian again?


Trinity *is* a European weave. Near as I can tell, lorenzo called it Persian because of its appearance, not because of its construction.

-phong



-- CGMaille tutorials now hosted here at MAIL! --

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 3 of 9. Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Aug 22, 2019 6:32 pm
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: