I've been thinking about this for a week now and can only conclude that I've made a mistake in the naming of knot columns in the views.
To rectify this we would need to change the naming convention in view to the following. Let's say you have an anchor AC_Actor, two knotted attributes, AC_PTA_Actor_PinTypeA and AC_PTB_Actor_PinTypeB, both sharing the knot PTP_PinType. Then the identity column PTP_ID would have to be changed in the view to PTA_PTP_ID and PTB_PTP_ID respectively. The aliases would be [PTA_PTP] and [PTB_PTP] and the value columns PTA_PTP_PinType and PTB_PTP_PinType.
The drawback is of course that all (in production) views containing at least one knot would suddenly be "broken" due to the change in naming. It would be a non-backwards compatible change.
Another solution would be to only change the names of the second knot columns when there is a shared knot, but that would not be consistent. Neither of these solutions are very tasteful unfortunately.
Finally, we could disallow a knot to be shared by more than one attribute on the same anchor, forcing you to create two very similar knots. This would be a limitation of course...
Any suggestions on how to move forward with this issue?