the last thing i wanna is bumping into the lawyer rather than the co-Creator to negotiating a cooperating possibility .
the software need to evolve , and the theory better need to be closed(mapping elements back to its elements set despite the dimensionality ).
so with finite elements and variations , combine them can create various story that comprehensible to human mind (both audience and author )
comprehensible to author means doesn't matter how many dimension the Story Mind Model is , there should be a liner work flow and simple finite operate-able operations let the author continuing adding different scale of details that have constrained choice by framework till the finishing of the story.
------and i figure that if a story feel like have a Theme , it should be blending some Thematic Elements into the Scene or Event right ? how to blend? the PDF fail to mention , the software seems too .
------how many Character Elements a Event should contain?
if you have a certain Tree like structure of the Model , then base on the basic storage format , you can have no matter how many high dimension perspective(view) you want . for example , one doing some sculpturing art , don't like oil painting only care one point of view . one need circling around the sculpture and decide every gesture trends and every hairy detail make the sculpture credible to human eye. when it come to 3D modeling software , no mater how many dimension material the author intent to create, the file stored on the hard disk is actually 1D (a string of 0,1 stored in different disk track, continued or not. )
since the universe itself can map into 0,1 on the surface of black-hole , i feel it plausible to map all Elements of story to quads , it is absolutely reasonable . the problem is the tree structure is so not clear that everything below Act/Scene plot is a mystery, (the "Sequence term" is mystery too) , forbidding author adding structural details(player casting for each scene/event/OneFrameOfStorybord, player-player conversation groups , stage of narratives )(plain text considered as non-strutural ) within the Framework, make the Framework obsolete to use, it have no constrains over plain text, it have not suggestion usage for its sub domain object instance.
and why i asking for trade secret in email or post don't consider as legal binding ? if a product is claimed of DramaticaTheroyBased(if it is not a broken one) , no matter how many version/ edition (ie/chrome/webkit/opera/window desktop/Apple desktop /android/ios) software it has , it is still all rights reserved for the original owner of the DramaticaTheroy isn't it?