Hi Rob,
On 2014-01-09 04:18 PM, Rob Seaman wrote:
On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Brooks Harris <bro...@edlmax.com> wrote:
Well, its clear the "end game" would take a long time to realize. It will take
serious patience on the part of folks who care.
We’re halfway there, then ;-) This conversation has been going on for a very
long time.
Yes, I know.
Click through to the archives for the current list and for the original
leapsecs list from:
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/links.html
The place to start before making a foray into the mailing list, however, is
with Steve Allen’s excellent pages:
http://ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/
Yes, I'm aware of and read much of it. Its a great collection of the issues.
My point is that the standards, where they exist, are dispersed and fractured.
Indeed. They are also contingent on physical context from the real world. It
is simple fact that a single time scale is insufficient to model the complexity
of the systems required.
Agreed. But a consistent "civil time" seems to be where the break-downs
occur and what has lead to the call to "eliminate Leap Seconds". This is
in no small part due to the know inadequacies of POSIX and NTP. So I
think some effort to better unify the behavior of "civil time", partly
by better documenting UTC's role in "civil time" would go a long way
towards relieving this pressure.
So, an effort to simply consolidate the terms, definitions, and standards into
a single reference document would go a long way toward lending clarity to
system implementers, other industries, and, importantly, to governments seeking
to refine their laws to coordinate time and commerce with other jurisdictions.
Maybe a reference library is a reasonable place to start rather than a single
document. I’m biased, but not therefore wrong, in recommending the proceedings
of the 2011 and 2013 UTC meetings:
Well, when I say "document" it might not take the form of a single
document - it could be several coordinated publications. My point partly
is it needs to created by due-process.
Maybe, just maybe, if enough experts rallied around a common due-process
document, then maybe, just maybe, the ITU might take a fresh look at it,
and maybe, just maybe, they'd consider refinements to the UTC specs like
you've suggested. And maybe, just maybe, the call to kill UTC would fade
away.
Decoupling Civil Timekeeping from Earth Rotation:
http://futureofutc.org/2011/preprints/
Requirements for UTC and Civil Timekeeping on Earth:
http://futureofutc.org/preprints/
The published proceedings are available from the American Astronautical Society:
http://www.univelt.com/Science.html
As well as this week’s well attended American Astronomical Society splinter
meeting:
http://futureofutc.org/aas223/
Thanks very much. I've read some of these and I'll review them all.
-Brooks
Rob Seaman
National Optical Astronomy Observatory
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
