@ChrisBarker-NOAA The first idea here is to allow data producers a way to 
clearly indicate that the values in their time variables are metric elapsed 
time with none of the unexpected discrepancies that I referred to earlier. 
Instead of **`gregorian_tia`**, we could call the calendar 
**`gregorian_linear`** or **`gregorian_metric`** or some such. We thought to 
reference TIA because TIA is, at base, a metric, linear count of elapsed 
seconds since the TIA epoch date/time.

The second idea here is to allow data producers to clearly indicate that the 
values in their time variables are non-metric elapsed time potentially 
containing one or more of the unexpected discrepancies that I referred to 
earlier, and to indicate that in all but one case they will get correct UTC 
time stamps if they convert the time values to time stamps using a method that 
is unaware of leap seconds. This result is not guaranteed if you add an offset 
to a time value before conversion, and differences between time values may not 
produce correct results. You may obtain one or more incorrect time stamps if 
your time values fall in a leap second.

Keep in mind that the potential errors are, as of today, going to be less than 
or equal to 37 seconds, with many of them being on the order of 1-2 seconds.

For backward compatibility, and for the vast number of datasets out there where 
errors of this magnitude are ignorable, the existing **`gregorian`** calendar 
(with a warning added in the Conventions section) will remain. It would impose 
a pretty severe burden to insist that all data producers use only 
**`gregorian_tai`** or **`gregorian_utc`** going forward.

The use of the word **metric** is problematic because minds inevitably go to 
**metric system**. I have used it this way so many times when thinking about 
this that I forget that is is confusing.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/cf-convention/cf-conventions/issues/148#issuecomment-434434805

Reply via email to