- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:18:33 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- cc: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>, www-rdf-calendar <www-rdf-calendar@w3.org>
On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Jan Grant wrote: On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > It needs a way of relating one clock to another that can be daisy-chained, so > I can get from yours to mine and back. I hate to say "that's a user-interface issue" - especially since that sentence isn't exactly accurate; see below. No, I don't think it is accurate. I think it is a design decision about whether we want a single point of reference or whether we can do without one on the assumption that the distributed systems of reference will work. I assert that we can do the latter, and that we can then use your proposed single reference as just one possiblity in a distributed framework, and add trust semantics to the user interfaces we create that allow me to choose whether I trust the US navy as a keeper of that or whether I trust the moon-tracking machine I want to install at home one day with the clockwork backup, or whether I just believe my computer's clock all the time. When people synchronise watches (see lots of old action movies...) they are relying on the fact that the critical timing relationships among themmselves are established. It may be that those are relativistic - for a far fetched example I might indulge in some near-light-speed travel and need to know when to call my Mum - but the system works either way, according to the needs that I describe. cheers Charles
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 11:18:55 UTC