On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Alan Watson <alan@alan-watson.org> wrote:
>
>> We use "TAI" for lack of a better term.
>
> Um, a better term is "The number of seconds elapsed since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 as measured in the atomic time scale then maintained by the BIH. This time scale was later renamed TAI, and it has been maintained by the BIPM since 1988."
>
> Or if that's too long winded, try: "The number of seconds elapsed since 1970-01-01 00:00:00 as measured in the TAI time scale and its predecessor."

Sorry, I mean to write that I intended to clear up the language.

>> The number of UTC seconds is the same as the number of TAI seconds.
>
> Yes. My point is that the organization that defines TAI has raised the possibility that it might be suppressed in favor of UTC. So, in 40 years people might not be familiar with the term "TAI second" and "TAI time scale". I'm just offering this remark as a very mild warning. If you're happy to use these terms, which I would expect will be widely understood for at least the next 20 years even if TAI is formally suppressed tomorrow, then that's perfectly fine with me.

I think in 40 years people are likely to remember "TAI" better
than "BIH", and probably "BIPM" as well, but we can take the
long-winded description here, thanks.

But my reply was mostly intended to emphasize that
we're only talking about the name here wrt TAI vs UTC,
and that you're _not_ talking about dropping TAI in favor
of posix as some might suggest.

--
Alex