>> How best to present this to the user, then? The difference >> in scale between an NPC and an entire sourcebook is fairly >> drastic. <snip> >> Broken up further (every spell, every item, every creature >> separate)? Or recombined into one enormous document? >>
The eventual goal in the OGC Directory, would be to link to actual copies of the OGC, provided either else where on the site or at other locations. This makes it easy for a person to find content from specific products (look it up via OGC Directory, follow link). The way I had planned it, is for low OGC content products, just break it down to individual items right away. For larger works, present it as one large file -- then break it down as time permits. All the OGC, would probably also be indexed, and a search engine provided to dig through it manually. >> In terms of how to remove PI from OGC, what is the best >> method? To try and fill in the gaps with an Open >> equivalent? Simple redaction (i.e. "... this >> sword once belonged to the legendary hero ----, who used it >> to ...")? In many cases, the OGC I've pulled, I just leave out the PI/Closed content altogether. But in other cases where it is either easy, or required (i.e. OGC makes no sense without something there) I've made OGCed filler. I don't think there is any "best" method, "Ease of reuse" will always be directly linked to "Effort" provided by the person extracting the OGC. I find that simply doing the same thing that governments do when they "de-classify" stuff is easiest, and is still highly usable -- ie, just simply "black out" what you can't share. -- Mike _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
