Standardize how we describe what astropy.time is/enables

[ayshih]

I'm annoyed by how the paper describes what astropy.time is/enables.

Section 2:

...a high precision time format...

The high-precision capability of astropy.time is arguably the least useful benefit for SunPy. I think everything else on the bulleted list in the SEP (https://github.com/sunpy/sunpy-SEP/blob/master/SEP-0008.md) ranks above it. I also think that "format" here sounds like we're just writing the time with more digits after the decimal.

Section 3:

...a modern astronomical time system.

Putting aside the issue that we're implying that datetime is not "modern", this reads as if we are building around a specific "astronomical time system" (e.g., a time scale such as TAI or TDB) rather than something more general.

Section 8 (the actual time discussion):

...a modern scientific time format...

I don't like "modern" or "format". Of course, this sentence is followed up by actual explanation, so the word choice here matters less.

Bottom line

Can we instead call it "a scientific time class"? Discuss.

[hayesla]

Comments from meeting

• leap seconds
• cross-disciplinary
• increased precision (probably too much of case - do we really need it for solar)
• handle other timescales - but need supporting information on why this is needed for solar physics
• datetime does not support TAI
• need to focus on the fact its a modern astronomical time system, but what does modern mean? need better word

I'll give this a go sure 🕐

[hayesla]

light travel times

[hayesla]

are we happy to close this issue now?

[nabobalis]

We merged the PR. I think it is safe to close this! Thanks @hayesla