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

Joined: September 26, 2009
Posts: 500
Submissions: 0
Location: Meridies

Maille Classification
Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:22 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I want to play around a bit with maille classification, and want to bounce ideas off of people with more experience at the fancy weaves than I have. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here or anything--this is merely an exercise I want to try, and I think I'll have fun with. I've got a background in geology and paleontology, so I've got experience with a few different modes of classification that may help here--specifically, taxonomy and lattice types. Plus, yeah, I'm just that weird. Very Happy

Here's my idea. I want to classify weaves on the basis of a single latice unit. For example, a fivelet in Euro 4-in-1 would be one unit, while a dragonscale would be five big and five little rings in a square. Latices in geology are often at funny angles, and this exists in maille as well--the persian 3-in-1 sheet is a rhombus, for example.

The dimensions a weave can be expanded in would necessarily play a role. For example, a Euro 4-in-1 can really only be expanded in two dimensions (other dimensions alter the latice in a fundimental way). Byzantine can expand in three. Half-persian can expand in two, while full persion can only expand in one (again, other dimensions alter the latice itself).

Obviously unit weaves would fit perfectly into this. I'm already dealing with weaves as merely connected latice units, so dealing with unconnectable latices (ones where connections either go outside the latice or alter it in some way) isn't a problem. Not sure of a comperable mineral example (now that's a thought--are any minerals limited to one latice unit? Hm.....).

I know byzie, the Euro even-numbered weaves (4-in-1, 6-in-1, even made an 8-in-1 ring, but it fell apart on me), Dragonscale, the simple persian stuff (half, 3/4, and full 3-in-1, 4-in-1, etc., plus 3-in-1 sheet), helm, and a few others.....Played around with captive inverted round and Hoodoo, but haven't mastered them yet. Haven't played with the Japanese family yet. Done some spiral stuf, but that's going to require a bit more thought.

I have a few questions. First, is this an idea that's even possible? Are some weaves unaccessable using this methodology? Second, what weaves would be most useful here? What I mean is, once I learned Euro 4-in-1, the theory behind all the other even numbered weaves naturally followed. Once I learned byzantine, box weave naturally followed (yeah, I got those backwards--mostly to show up a knight who was complaining about how difficult a squire's chain was). What weaves would be the most effective use of my time? Third, has anyone done this before? I haven't seen anything like it, but that doesn't mean much with me--I miss things all the time.

Not sure where this is going. Mostly right now it's a fun way to aply some knowledge I have to my hobby. And again, I know classification is a touchy subject, but I'm honestly not trying to step on anyone's toes. It's a geology thing--we like to make a bunch of different classifications for the same thing (carbonates have two primary classification systems, for example).

[Moderated By Cynake - A member brought to my attention this belongs in the Weaves forum as it's about weaves. Chat is for non-maille stuff. Carry on.]

Joined: August 10, 2005
Posts: 7098
Submissions: 337
Location: UK

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Dec 31, 2009 9:22 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Sounds like a really interesting idea, looking for ward to seeing what comes of it.


Maille Code
V2.0 T7.3 R5.4 Ep Feur MAg/Cu Wm$ Cbjpw$ G0.5/3.0 I1.5/12.0 N322.150 Pajs Dacdjsw Xa7g631p4t24w64 S88 Hipsu

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

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:00 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Great to see someone taking initiative on this; even more impressive that it's a non-admin. Shows some moxie, I tells ya. Smile

I think putting weaves in terms of lattice structures would certainly be a unique way of going about it. I'll have to dig out my materials science books to refresh my memory on how crystal lattices are classified.

My first though on how to go about this is to try to find 8 or so weaves that are very dissimilar, and work to get a taxonomy that works consistently for all of them. That way you don't invest a lot of time making a taxonomy that works for a group of similar weaves, but fall apart on the more oddball weaves.

I'm working on a classification theory in a more general sense (what makes a weave, what makes a variant, how to develop new weaves/variants) so I'd very much like to stay in touch on your work, so we can maybe make a Grand Unified Maille Theory Very Happy

-phong



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

Joined: September 26, 2009
Posts: 500
Submissions: 0
Location: Meridies

Reply with quote
Posted on Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:48 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I had considered the lattice types we use in minerology, but those are almost always for 3D figures. Most of the weaves I've seen are one or two dimensional (meaning, they either are strings or sheets; Full Persian is pretty much one dimensional, while the Japanese family is pretty much two dimensional). I read about two dimensional systems of symmetry, but I've gotta learn a bit more about them before I can apply those to maille. They focus on mirror and radial symmetry, plus some glide symmetry (which I'm not too clear on just yet).

Quote:
I'm working on a classification theory in a more general sense (what makes a weave, what makes a variant, how to develop new weaves/variants)
I've thought a bit about that myself....What I can come up with is a hierarchical structure. This site already has that to some extent, in that the weaves are split up into families in the Library. Biology does something similar. It allows you to talk about different things at different levels. For example, at the species level the number of orbital fissures (look like cracks on the eye socket) in a crab is critically important to classification (well, of one group). On the family level, it's irrelevant. On the Kingdom level the presence or absence of eyes themselves is irrelevant. You talk about the traits shared at each level. The only issue is, how many levels do we want? Ostensibly, any orderly adjustment can be viewed as a variation, even just hanging an extra ring off every other outer ring in a 2-in-1 chain.

I do like your suggestion. I've been poking around the Library recently; I'll have to find a few "general" weaves (ones that lead into other weaves) and work on what you suggested. Smile

Joined: August 14, 2006
Posts: 1890
Submissions: 50
Location: McPherson, Kansas

Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:51 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

It's a different approach than anyone has ever taken before, from what I've seen, but sounds like it may work better than any other prior attempt.


Comprehensive Diameter Database: Web Page | Online Spreadsheet | About the database

"When you have bigger wire, you make bigger maille. It's neat like that." -Cynake, January 15, 2009

Joined: December 13, 2005
Posts: 29
Submissions: 4
Location: Marsh Lake, YT, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:50 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Eh...I can see this going either way. Yes it will work for some things, no for a lot of others. Think of this...silicates are broken down into crystallographic classifications based on crystal structure. Tellurides are not. Maille will have similar issues of yes some things can be classified as such(eg. E X-1) and others cannot due to specific units not connecting under a pre-defined category(eg. a lot of "hybrid" weaves).

Long story short I see this as becoming really complex and categories split to the point where it's a tangled mess. Now things broken up like they are now and then rearranged from alphabetical to groupings of similar weaves/variants would be useful. So in this case I guess your approach could work but I can see a hell of alot of oddballs flying around.

*edit*

Don't let this discourage. I say try it and see but I do think that with your approach it might be too technical to address all the variability in weaves to be practical for the general public. Just look at geology...everyone's eyes glaze over when you start to talk it except when talking to another geo and then its arguing about interprutation. Laughing

Quote:
now that's a thought--are any minerals limited to one latice unit? Hm.....

No. Trace elemental impurities will always exist unless there is some seriously special conditions.
Quote:
It's a geology thing--we like to make a bunch of different classifications for the same thing

Seriously it comes down to egos in the academic world half the time. Alot of the classification systems address a few points that the creator thought was important, however I feel most could be put together to become more versitile in all situations since the terminology/features are different between systems. That being said though alot of time each one was developed on the other side of the world so one area uses one and a different area another.
Quote:
carbonates have two primary classification systems, for example

Each has its merits(one's depositional the other is allochem/interstitial material based). I woud think these could easily be put together. Crinoidal biomicrite packstone. See? It works... Razz Plus everyone knows carbonate geo's are in it for the rum on a Carribbean beach and need to keep thinking crap like that up to look like they have a real job. Wink

Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:48 pm || Last edited by lorraine on Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Link to Post: Link to Post

I make references to the opening post of the tread below, so here is the link:
http://mailleartisans.org/board/viewtopic.php?t=14774
Reading that will make the following clearer.

Grandparents
They are generally the "Adam and Eve" weaves that all the others can claim some connection to. There is probably very little disagreement on what Grandparent weaves are. (Although "never say never" I always say.) Grandparent weaves can lead to Inevitable Progressions (IP), Parent Weaves, Children, and Inevitable Discoveries (ID).

Parents
Weaves that have a familial connection to a Grandparent weave, but are unique in that they themselves can lead to IP's, ID's, and Children.

Children
Children are a result of a Grandparent or Parent, but are not likely to be unique enough to lead to their own Children or IP's.

Inevitable Progressions
These are the result of carrying a Grandparent or Parent weave to a natural progression, usually by adding something.

Inevitable Discoveries
These are not technically new weaves. They are an element of a Grandparent, Parent, Child, or IP that would likely be discovered multiple times by multiple people.

Some Examples
Grandparent - Euro 4-1
IP - Euro 6-1
Parent - Box
IP - Roundmaille
Child - DragonScale
ID - Barrel Ring

Grandparent and Parent Weaves would have their own separate pages. These pages would list and have pictures of the resulting Children, and IP's. ID's could be shown on the page, or they could be linked to.

This is just a starting point, I'm sure I have left something out.


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3129
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:50 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

lorraine wrote:
Variation - DragonScale


Based on the unique requirements of DragonScale in terms of multiple ring sizes, and their given ratio... As well as the reaction of the weave, and weaving method... I'd be inclined to call it a Child, as opposed to a variant...

But I agree with eveything else Very Happy



Joined: December 22, 2007
Posts: 4610
Submissions: 106
Location: Hampton, Virginia USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:54 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
lorraine wrote:
Variation - DragonScale


Based on the unique requirements of DragonScale in terms of multiple ring sizes, and their given ratio... As well as the reaction of the weave, and weaving method... I'd be inclined to call it a Child, as opposed to a variant...

But I agree with eveything else Very Happy

Um, I don't know how that got there. I actually meant Child and not variation. Thanks for catching that!


"I am a leaf on the wind." ~ Wash
Lorraine's Chains
Gallery Submission Guidelines

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Dec 16, 2019 7:25 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> Weaves Discussion
Display posts from previous: