On 2015-05-22T00:38 Chris Barker wrote: On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Jim Biard <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: The point I'm trying to make about gregorian_nls is that it lacks any mechanism for specifying which time system is being used for the timestamp in the reference date & time.
and that, indeed is the only thing we need the calendar specification for, yes? (after that, seconds are well defined). I'm starting to be convinced that one might need the leap second specification not only for the reference timestamp, but also for the correct scale of the offset values, i.e. whether the leap seconds should be assumed accounted for (true distance in seconds) or somehow fudged with (as ignored in the Posix time routines). In other words the seconds aren't as well defined as we might want to believe either. Furthermore, the discussion and proposed solutions Den 22. mai 2015 kl. 00:38 skrev Chris Barker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: or we state that the timestamp in the reference must be UTC. Declaring the reference timestamp unambiguously as UTC doesn't force anyone to extract absolute times from the time variable in UTC. It does require data consumers to convert the UTC timestamp to GPS or TAI or whatever before proceeding to extract absolute times from the time variable. Isn't TAI also complete? Or am I all confused? -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata -- -+-Ben-+-
_______________________________________________ CF-metadata mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
