I agree, it _is_ disappointing. But, Ray, would it be possible to at least make the definition of "representation with reduced accuracy" less misleading? Section 2.3.7 currently defines it as "abbreviation of a representation by omission of lower order components". Could that be changed by just adding at the end ", thereby reducing the precision of the representation" or some such?
--Don
On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:25 AM, Nathan Harrenstein <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> It may not be a "serious defect" as you say, but neither is the punctuation, spelling, or format, but those will surely be corrected during the editing process. it is disappointing that this misuse of the term will continue to be propagated, and to be frank it is a bit hypocritical coming from an organization which creates and promotes standards.
>
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Denenberg, Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> We all among us understand that “reduced accuracy” where it occurs should be “reduced precision”.
>
> However the existing 8601 uses “reduced accuracy”. It is beyond our charter to challenge and correct that. The committee was chartered to fix serious defects, and some have been identified and fixed. But this cannot be considered a serious defect: the misuse of the term “accuracy” in place of the correct term “precision” is not going to impede interoperability.
>
> And so, when I adapted the draft spec to 8601 form, I needed to conform to the template set in 8601. Doing otherwise would cause confusion during the review and could put approval of this spec in jeopardy.
>
> Please note though, in cases where a new feature (EDTF) invokes the concept of precision, the term “precision”, has been retained. (I was able to successfully win the argument in those cases.)
>
>
> Ray
>
>
---
Donald Byrd
Woodrow Wilson Indiana Teaching Fellow
Adjunct Associate Professor of Informatics
Visiting Scientist, Research Technologies
Indiana University Bloomington
|