I had made a mention of this term: SI vs SI metric, and discussed with DS Johar, the then Editor of ISI Bulletin, New Delhi - a publoication of Indian Standards. SI is certainly what has been included in the improvement of 'cgs, MKS, MKSA,MKSA(Rationalised) and thus leading to Systeme Internationale d'Unites (SI in all languages).
But, SI metric shall and should be referred to units, symbols and quantities when related to 'length unit' Metre (m'). I regret, I am not aware of histriography of SI metric - except that I named my book so (1984), containing some convertions for units, in relation to The Metric Second. Regards,
Brij B. Vij<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Joseph B. Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [USMA:23416] Re: metric = SI? Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 10:17:02 -0500Joseph B. Reid wrote:The only relevant statement in that document is:[...] I am confused. Does that mean that the position of the NIST (quoted again below) is not relevant? [begin quote} NIST wrote that it is confusing and redundant: a) to use the term "SI metric" system because it implies that there are metric systems other than the International System of Units (SI), [end quote] http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fpla/basis_jan1994.html > Terry should be more specific in his quotations. I do not understand what you mean by 'more specific'. Are you asking for more text in the quote, or less?
I am asking for the bibliographic reference of your statement. I was unable to find it in the www posting that you mentioned, which was to a posting about the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, not from NIST, Incidentalloy, I do not accept American statements about metric matters. I only accept BIPM and ISO documents as authoritative.
Joseph B. Reid
17 Glebe Road West
Toronto M5P 1C8 Telephone 416-486-6071
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
