Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="soulcatcher" data-source="post: 254841" data-attributes="member: 5940">ok, yeah - from the perspective of getting  it done, defining standards before we define who is going to define them/who is going to implement is a bil like putting the cart before the horse...  But I still think it should be an early step - because  of the interoperability it provides/API it gives to others outside the core people doing it.Deffinitly - though I don't think this is necessarily a new 'netbook'  A new relationship could be defined - you have people who accept submissions, and tend the giangatic database of stuff.  Things submitted to the database could be considered to be submitted to the appropriate netbooks.So, to fall back on Feats - a new group could be formed in the FanCC called like the Net OGC Feats DB.  the net book of feats could then use that as a source for feats. So the Net OGC Feats DB would need to be able to handle revision or something like it - so that feats that have to be submitted multiple times can change over time - but still allow people to get to the old version if they need to.  Basically, a system like this could not only act as an OGC repository, but also as a revision control system - to handle erratta and changes to submitted feats.  Just an idea....This is not the only possible relationship - the Net OGC Feats DB could instead see the Net Book of Feats as a publisher.  The fact that they could both be working under the same umbrella of the FanCC does kinda make the first method desirable though.I totally agree.  Pulling all the OGC content out of some of these books is alot of work - work that it's not necessarily fair to ask the publishers to do for us - after all, they gave the community rights to the content in the first place, no reason to make it cost them man hours to make it available.This is getting ahead of where it is, but I would say that the organization should have a flexible policy of generally pulling in OGC after a certain amount of time - like say 2 years.  BUT keep a dialog with the companies to cover for situations like the rituals and relics situation mentioned earlier in this thread (it's been out 2 years, and they are looking to release R&R II, and a reprint of R&R I).  There is no need to antagonize the publishers, but they did explicitly allow us to use this data by choosing to cover it under the OGL.Is there anyone here from the FanCC?  If you are, do you have any comments about moving an effort like this under the FanCC umbrella (as new teams, not userping old ones)</blockquote>

Verification