[LEAPSECS] operational time -- What's in a name?

[Rob Seaman]

On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Steve Allen wrote:


> But if we call POSIX time_t by a new name (say TI) which has

> international status and properties which match the specified

> characteristics of time_t then what we have is enlightenment.


How about calling it GPS?

The assertion is that TAI itself is unacceptable as a practical time  
scale.

The notion is that we'll turn UTC into that time scale.

However, by doing so, UTC will no longer be a flavor of Universal Time.

The largely unstated assumption is that folks needing actual Universal  
Time will use UT1 instead.

Note, however, that UT1 is unacceptable as a practical time scale  
since like TAI it is retroactively computed.

Rather, how about implementing Steve's scheme, but using GPS and UTC?   
Both would remain practical and transportable time scales.  Both are  
known to the public already.  GPS is clearly the most flagrantly  
successful timekeeping standard by any marketing standpoint.

And after all, this is really just the "moveable timezone" notion of  
civil timekeeping, but turned into a functional system concept for  
evaluation purposes.  Simply saying "we'll make up the difference by  
smooshing the timezones around as needed" is not equivalent to a  
coherent plan.

That said, any such system needs to pass through a system engineering  
planning process before it can be deemed to be a solution to any  
problem.  (Because otherwise there will be no clearly described  
problem to be solved.)

Rob Seaman
NOAO