I'm not saying that this can't or won't be changed in the final approved standard. I AM saying that it could NOT have been changed in the initial Working Draft. A Working Draft eventually becomes a Committee Draft, when it reaches a certain level of stability; until that time the Working Draft remains subject to revision by the committee. However this initial Working Draft was produced under a deadline - the committee would have been terminated if it did not meet that deadline.
There was one participant (not a committee member but a liaison) who firmly insisted on "accuracy" vs. "precision". He pointed to some ISO reference that insists that "accuracy" is the correct term. I haven't looked at it yet, we needed to move on and get the WD out, and fight that battle later. We were able to use "precision" in the precision-specific material.
The time to address this matter isn't clear to me yet, I need to investigate further what the review, comment, and approval processes are. It's been a long time (25+ years) since I have been closely involved in an ISO standard.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of the Developing Date/Time Standards
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Byrd, Donald A.
> Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 7:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [DATETIME] WD: Reduced accuracy
> 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?
> 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