LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for DATETIME Archives


DATETIME Archives

DATETIME Archives


DATETIME@C4VLPLISTSERV01.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DATETIME Home

DATETIME Home

DATETIME  February 2016

DATETIME February 2016

Subject:

Re: WD: Reduced accuracy

From:

"Byrd, Donald A." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:46:13 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (30 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
February 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
March 2014
September 2013
May 2013
February 2013
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
May 2012
March 2012
December 2011
November 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager