Re: [LEAPSECS] interoperability

From: Rob Seaman <seaman_at_NOAO.EDU>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:41:29 -0700

On Jan 8, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:

> You cannot divide timekeeping, time dissemination, into neat stages.

Again. My point is strengthened. This being the case, a requirement
on one "flavor" of time transfers to others. We will not solve the
problem of creeping complexity and interface violations by attempting
to legislate the physical world out of the equation. Rather, it is
the common baseline of mean solar time that will save us from our own
follies. Whether it is a "real number" or not, it has the benefit of
correspondence (now, and day after day, millennia after millennia) of
mattering to humanity. I don't say it matters in critical detail for
every purpose under the sun, rather it matters in broad strokes for
many a purpose.

I've got nothing against TAI and other flavors of interval time, they
simply do not match the requirements for a common human oriented
baseline. They are preferred for some technical purposes. They are
most definitely not preferred in "broad strokes" over long periods of
time to the bulk of our "customers".

The customer is always right.

Received on Sun Jan 08 2006 - 15:41:45 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 04 2010 - 09:44:55 PDT