[Rebuild] Idea for ODbL transition strategy

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 01/31/12 23:41, errt at gmx.de wrote:
> Quite a good overview, but there's one point I strongly disagree with:

>> (Every "deleted" object is considered compatible with ODbL.)

> That's probably a bad idea, as undeleting a deleted object would return
> it in whatever state it was before

No.

An editor that wishes to "undelete" an object needs to access its 
history via the normal history calls, and re-upload a previous version. 
You cannot simply tell the API "please undelete that", you have to say 
"please undelete that by installing this in its place"!

And since the history calls would not return tainted versions, an 
undelete could only be done to an un-tainted version.

Potlatch 1's undelete is a bit different in that it uses a 
non-Rails-API-call but that could be modified accordingly, or just 
switched off.

(There was discussion about adding an option to the normal "map" call to 
"give me all deleted objects in this area", and such an option would 
still work normally. Although we'll have a couple million objects that 
not only are deleted, but have *only* non-odbl compliant versions; 
people interested in "deleted objects in an area" with a view to perhaps 
restoring them might not be interested in those that are practically 
un-restoreable because no prior version is odbl compliant. But that's 
something for another day.)

Bye
Frederik