Issue 3595: using Time Service (biomolecular-ftf) Source: Japan Biological Informatics Consortium (Mr. Martin Senger, martin.senger@gmail.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: I would like to discuss the usage of data types from TimeBase module. It is probable that I just need some patient explanation - but it may also turn out that some clarification in our bsa spec could be made. I mean a clarification how to use the TimeBase data types properly. The talk is about the "absolute" attributes: created, started, ended (whatever moment they mean - it is a different topic). These attributes are expressed as TimeBase::UtcT. Which means that each of them consists from 4 values: TimeT, two InaccuracyT's and TdfT. The simplest is probably TdfT which defines in which time zone the analysis was executed. Is this interpretation correct? The members for inaccuracy may be used to say that the main time (in TimeT, see below) is actually only precise for milliseconds - because I guess most implementations and languages give us easily only milliseconds and not 100 nanoseconds. Again, would this interpretation of these attributes be correct? The main attribute is TimeT. Here is the definition from the TimeBase spec: "TimeT represents a single time value, which is 64 bits in size, and holds the number of 100 nanoseconds that have passed since the base time. For absolute time the base is 15 October 1582 00:00 of the Gregorian Calendar. All absolute time shall be computed using dates from the Gregorian Calendar." My question is: Does CORBA Time Service specify that this attribute must be an _absolute_ time? Would not be easier (and more appropriate for our purposes) to say in our spec that this time is _relative_ to the beginning of the epoch (1/1/1970)? In other words, there are actually two questions: - Do we need to use an absolute time here (to remain compliant with the Time Service)? - And if the answer is "no", then: do we want to have here an absolute gregorian time? Resolution: Accepted. Yes, we use absolute time, in compliance with the Time Service. No change to specification Revised Text: Actions taken: May 3, 2000: received issue May 24, 2001: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 17:18:57 +0100 (BST) From: Martin Senger To: biomolecular-ftf@omg.org Subject: using Time Service In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: -gP!!b>dd9F)C!! To: biomolecular-ftf@emerald.omg.org Subject: Re: issue 3595 -- Biomolecular FTF Issue In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20000503125916.00984730@emerald.omg.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: K~F!!/&#e9`-P!!//Pe9 One more comment to the proposed discussion on using TimeBase module. I wrote: > > My question is: Does CORBA Time Service specify that this > attribute > must be an _absolute_ time? Would not be easier (and more > appropriate for > our purposes) to say in our spec that this time is _relative_ to the > beginning of the epoch (1/1/1970)? In other words, there are > actually two > questions: > - Do we need to use an absolute time here (to remain compliant > with the > Time Service)? > - And if the answer is "no", then: do we want to have here an > absolute > gregorian time? > The TimeBase spec also says that: "...UtcT defines the structure of the time value... Whether a UtcT structure is holding a relative or absolute time is determined by its history. There is no explicit flag within the object holding that state information." Which may indicate that we are free to say in our bsa spec what time the UtcT is holding. We may even be obliged to say it :-) [ The TimeBase spec [un]fortunately does not specify what "history" means.] Regards, Martin -- Martin Senger EMBL Outstation - Hinxton Senger@EBI.ac.uk European Bioinformatics Institute Phone: (+44) 1223 494636 Wellcome Trust Genome Campus (Switchboard: 494444) Hinxton Fax : (+44) 1223 494468 Cambridge CB10 1SD United Kingdom http://industry.ebi.ac.uk/~senger Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 20:21:40 -0700 From: Scott Markel Organization: NetGenics, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BSA FTF Subject: [OMG-BSA] proposed resolutions for some issues Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: W9!e9QLE!!'Okd9>SPe9 In accordance with the consensus at last week's FTF meeting, here are the proposed resolutions for the issues that were considered straightforward. Note that as some multi-issue issues are split apart, some of those may also fall into this category. I'm not reproducing the entire text of the individual issues. You can find that at http://cgi.omg.org/issues/biomolecular-ftf.html. Issues can be reported online at http://www.omg.org/technology/issuesform.htm. This message is *not* a vote. I just want to make sure these particular issues are as straightforward as some of us thought last week. Please let me know if you disagree. Actually it would be nice to know if you agree, too. :) If there's been no response by early next week (Philip is out until then), I'll send out a message kicking off a vote. If there are responses, hopefully we'll get the resolutions resolved and still vote on these issues next week. Scott Issue 3595: using Time Service Resolution: Yes, we use absolute time, in compliance with the Time Service. No change to specification. ---