[tz] Theory - proposal to delete the reference to population

[Tobias Conradi]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Paul Eggert <eggert at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
> The Theory file is not a formal definition; it's an attempt
> to write down common-sense rules about what's in the
> database.  I suppose it might help to clarify it somewhat --
> thus, for example, perhaps "uninhabited" might be clarified
> to have its common interpretation "no permanent inhabitants".
No inhabitant is permanent. But speaking of regions having population
for more than X consecutive days is more robust. Even better delete
any reference to population.

> I imagine it's possible to haggle over any such definition
> indefinitely, but we do have limited resources, and to be
> honest I'd rather leave it alone than haggle about it.
Deleting the definition is saving even more time. No question to that
part of the Theory file anymore.

> Another way to think of it is that we have enough trouble
> worrying about locations containing permanent inhabitants,
> without also having to worry about transitory populations
> where data are even harder to come by and are more likely to
> be incorrect or in conflict.
Is there conflicting information for HM or BV, the two ISO 3166-1
codes which seem to be currently the only ones that are not mapped to
any zone?

> We're better off spending our
> limited resources in areas where
>  the need is real and where
> we have real data.
Do you think the need reported for a zone for HM during the last hours
is not real?

Do you think the data reported for HM is not real data?

-- 
Tobias Conradi
Rheinsberger Str. 18
10115 Berlin
Germany

http://tobiasconradi.com/