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

Tobias Conradi tobias.conradi at gmail.com
Sat May 12 05:44:04 UTC 2012

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


More information about the tz mailing list