Would you do this..?

[maddman75]

I'd be willing to do some grunt-work on this, if for no other reason than I'd love to have it. To be honest, I have a habit of, um, obtaining electronic copies of books I own from nefarious sources merely because it's convienent to have a copy on the computer to reference while writing. Electronic good for designing, paper good for playing. I use the SRD a lot for the same purpose, to look items up.

Now there's two problems with this. First, you can't be certain to find everything you're looking for. Second, its generally in pdf format. pdf is great for preserving presentation, but it takes forever to open and navigate. Having a txt or rtf or even html version would be much, much superior.

So basically while it would be good for the publishers for the reasons cited above, I think it would be good for the players and DMs as well. So I'm in.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Now there's two problems with this. First, you can't be certain to find everything you're looking for.

A well constructed index of keywords (in a well constructed database) would solve this.

Second, its generally in pdf format. pdf is great for preserving presentation, but it takes forever to open and navigate. Having a txt or rtf or even html version would be much, much superior.

Note that I gave both pdf and doc as examples. RTF (to stay in line with the current SRD standard) would likely be the most logical route. However, note that an unlocked pdf can be saved as an rtf or copy/pasted into any other format. Either way, there isn't really a problem.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

A few basic questions:

1) Who's responsible for ensuring that only OGC material is transcribed? As has been discussed to death in other threads, some publishers go out of their way to make it difficult to tell what is OGC and what isn't. What about proofreading?

2) Who writes up the section 15 (or any of the legal docs that have to accompany the transcribed material)?

3) Will publishers have veto power over what goes in the repository? (For their own material only, of course)

---------------------
As MS suggested, a template of some sort to ensure a consistent format would be a big help to everyone. This is also necessary as many publishers make their content OGC, but the formatting is not (for obvious reasons).

Concerning the poll, I wasn't sure which to select - basically I'll be happy to help as long as RL doesn't intrude. I suspect most of us can't give a concrete answer until the details are worked out and posted.

BTW - I really hope this works out. Like others, I'd love to use it when it's up and running.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

A few basic questions:

1) Who's responsible for ensuring that only OGC material is transcribed? As has been discussed to death in other threads, some publishers go out of their way to make it difficult to tell what is OGC and what isn't. What about proofreading?

Also a topic within the other conversation. It's a toughie. However, my suggestion is to post a draft document (much like WotC did with the 3.0 SRD originally) and request the original source to verify. Remember, while some companies make vague OGC Declaration an artform, they are also obligated to point out your errors in extracting OGC. Individual company members would likely be contacted in private (via email), but the posting of the draft would also be testiment of the companies willingness to participate based on how long it remains an unapproved draft.

2) Who writes up the section 15 (or any of the legal docs that have to accompany the transcribed material)?

This would be included in the document itself or be attached to it via the database.

3) Will publishers have veto power over what goes in the repository? (For their own material only, of course)

That would be up to who ever wrote it. However, by virtue of Open Content being open, the default answer would be "no" because the license doesn't allow it.

As MS suggested, a template of some sort to ensure a consistent format would be a big help to everyone. This is also necessary as many publishers make their content OGC, but the formatting is not (for obvious reasons).

Agreed.

Concerning the poll, I wasn't sure which to select - basically I'll be happy to help as long as RL doesn't intrude. I suspect most of us can't give a concrete answer until the details are worked out and posted.

Understandable.

BTW - I really hope this works out. Like others, I'd love to use it when it's up and running.

Me too, which is why I'm glad RD's considering it... Might actually happen at a decent pace.

The two that I know of have certain inherent limitations. One was really just an index of what OGC can be found in which book. Unfortunately, because naming the book requires using PI titles, it's on a basis of publisher consent. The other one is attempting to make a name for itself by including their own logo to use when you use their documents. A neat concept, but scares me off because products under its logo easily become associated together. RD is just talking about a straight-and-narrow rules depository, which is exactly what I'd like to see (and would be willing to do work for).

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Only 29 votes..? I think we can get up a few more on a Friday Afternoon (US).

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

Sure, I'd be willing to help out. I couldn't do it long term, but I'd help out whenever I could. It sounds like it would be a great resource, both for companies and for DMs/players.