开云体育

Agreed -- there is no one definition that will work for all awards
programs. Thus for most award programs, the logging application will
need to utilize information other than the CONT tag's value to
determine whether a QSO counts as Antarctica. I see two choices for
including Antarctica in the CONT enumeration:

a. create a definition that is intuitively useful from the user
perspective (e.g. "anything south of 60S latitude")

b. choose the definition used by a popular awards program

Since WAC doesn't count Antarctica, would IOTA be the next most
popular choice?

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In adifdev@..., Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@a...>
wrote:

2. any island whose IOTA tag begins with AN

There is going to be some conflict here. Most (all?) awards

programs consider South (Georgia, Orkney, Sandwich, Shetlands) as
South America. Bouvet, Heard, Peter 1 and Macquarie may not be AN
either (I think Heard is AF, don't remember the rest).

Ref. No.NameMain PrefixAN-001 Graham Land West (Adelaide Island)

group Various AN-002 Bouvet Island 3Y AN-003 Heard Island VK0 AN-
004 Peter 1 Island 3Y AN-005 Macquarie Island VK0 AN-006 Graham
Land West (Biscoe Islands) group Various AN-007 South Georgia
Island VP8 AN-008 South Orkney Islands Various AN-009 South
Sandwich Islands VP8 AN-010 South Shetland Islands Various AN-011
Ross Island group Various AN-012 Graham Land West (Palmer
Archipelago) group Various AN-013 Trinity Peninsula group Various
AN-014 Berkner Island Various AN-015 Queen Maud Land (Prince Harald
etc) group Various AN-016 Antarctica Various AN-017 Adelie Land
group Various AN-018 Palmer Land West (Alexander Island) group
Various

-- Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford, MA

01863

USA +978-251-9933, jjreisert@a...,

----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Bernstein <aa6yq@a...>
To: adifdev@...
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 2:29:46 PM
Subject: [adifdev] Re: Add Antarctica as a continent?

Good points, Mike. We clearly can't shoehorn the resolution of

this

into 5.1.7, so lets consider it a 5.1.8 issue.

I would prefer to avoid the redundancy of WAC and CONT tags.

If we stick with one tag, how about this for the definition of
Antartica:

1. any location physically on continental Antarctica

2. any island whose IOTA tag begins with AN

Contests that use a different definition would have to use

lat/lon,

grid squares, or callsigns to make a determination.

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Michael Keane K1MK wrote:

At 05:04 AM 1/23/06, Jon Bloom wrote:

As long as Antartica is treated as a continental
value somewhere -- and it is -- it should be included in the
enumeration.

I disagree, strongly.

The lowest common denominator approach is absolutely antithetical
with interchanging semantic values rather than just exchanging a set
of lexical symbols.

My comment was specifically about the IARU/WAC continent exchange. In that frame of reference, AN most certainly is used in contest exchanges. Why we're getting hung up on the fact that it isn't used for WAC mystifies me. Inasmuch as it is used for other IARU activities (and non-IARU activities such as CQWW), I simply don't understand why it shouldn't be included with the other continents.

If there is an amateur application that uses some other definition for continents, let's hear about it. If there is, then, assuredly, it's an issue to consider and probably requires a separate field. (IOTA already has its own field that includes the IOTA continent.)

One of the major themes of ADIF 2 is to improve upon ADIF 1 in the area of semantic exchange.

I'm all for that, but I don't think there is a real conflict here. It seems to me your choices are:

1) incorporate the IARU continent definition, such as it is, by reference; or

2) devise your own continent definition.

The latter may be more appealing from the standpoint of completeness, but unless the ADIF group is planning to sponsor awards and contests based on it, a definition that differs from the one in common amateur use is of little value to the end user. Let's keep in mind that this is not an academic exercise. What ADIF comprises must be bound by what amateurs practice, messy as that may sometimes be.

-- Jon

The IARU continent definition isn't very helpful in defining
Antarctica:

"The following information should be helpful in determining the
continental area of a station located adjacent to a continental
boundary. North America includes Greenland (OX) and Panama (HP).
South America includes Trinidad & Tobago (9Y), Aruba (P4), Curacao &
Bonaire (PJ2-4) and Easter Island (CE0). Oceania includes Minami
Torishima (JD1), Philippines (DU), Eastern Malaysia (9M6-8) and
Indonesia (YB). Asia includes Ogasawara Islands (JD1), Maldives
(8Q), Socotra Island (7O), Abu Ail Island (J2/A), Cyprus (5B, ZC4),
Eastern Turkey (TA2-9) and Georgia (4L). Europe includes the fourth
and sixth call areas of Russia (R1-6), Istanbul (TA1), all Italian
islands (I) and Azores (CU). Africa includes Ceuta & Melilla (EA9),
Madeira (CT3), Gan Island (8Q), French Austral Territory (FT) and
Heard Island (VK0)."

(from )

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

--- In adifdev@..., Jon Bloom <jbloom@a...> wrote:

Michael Keane K1MK wrote:
> At 05:04 AM 1/23/06, Jon Bloom wrote:
>
>>As long as Antartica is treated as a continental
>>value somewhere -- and it is -- it should be included in the
>>enumeration.
>
> I disagree, strongly.
>
> The lowest common denominator approach is absolutely

antithetical

> with interchanging semantic values rather than just exchanging

a set

> of lexical symbols.

My comment was specifically about the IARU/WAC continent exchange.

In

that frame of reference, AN most certainly is used in contest

exchanges.

Why we're getting hung up on the fact that it isn't used for WAC
mystifies me. Inasmuch as it is used for other IARU activities

(and

non-IARU activities such as CQWW), I simply don't understand why

it

shouldn't be included with the other continents.

If there is an amateur application that uses some other definition

for

continents, let's hear about it. If there is, then, assuredly,

it's an

issue to consider and probably requires a separate field. (IOTA

already

has its own field that includes the IOTA continent.)

One of the major themes of ADIF 2 is to improve upon ADIF 1 in

the

area of semantic exchange.

I'm all for that, but I don't think there is a real conflict here.

It

seems to me your choices are:

1) incorporate the IARU continent definition, such as it is, by
reference; or

2) devise your own continent definition.

The latter may be more appealing from the standpoint of

completeness,

but unless the ADIF group is planning to sponsor awards and

contests

based on it, a definition that differs from the one in common

amateur

use is of little value to the end user. Let's keep in mind that

this is

not an academic exercise. What ADIF comprises must be bound by

what

amateurs practice, messy as that may sometimes be.

-- Jon

Dave Bernstein wrote:

The IARU continent definition isn't very helpful in defining
Antarctica:

That's what I meant by "such as it is." :-)

No, it's not very clear, yet it has been used without much difficulty to date. Apparently, those who are operating from Antarctica know they are.

The thing is, if ADIF uses a definition that is not accepted by the extant awards or contest sponsors, of what use is it? One may as well leave it undefined.

I don't think the purpose of ADIF is to define amateur exchange data. Rather, it is to describe a means for the unambiguous interchange of such data. What "unambiguous" means in this case is not that ADIF must make the definition exact with respect to physical reality, but that ADIF must allow for the interchange of QSO data as defined by those who are consuming the data. That means that ADIF needs to have a means of interchanging "continent as defined by IARU/WAC." It is not the province of the ADIF group to decide what geographic areas fall into that definition. It is sufficient to say "as defined by IARU/WAC" and leave it at that, just as is done for CQ Zone, for example. Trying to define it further would be pointless as best and at worst would create a dichotomy between ADIF applications and those who are trying to use the data.

-- Jon

"The following information should be helpful in determining the continental area of a station located adjacent to a continental boundary. North America includes Greenland (OX) and Panama (HP). South America includes Trinidad & Tobago (9Y), Aruba (P4), Curacao & Bonaire (PJ2-4) and Easter Island (CE0). Oceania includes Minami Torishima (JD1), Philippines (DU), Eastern Malaysia (9M6-8) and Indonesia (YB). Asia includes Ogasawara Islands (JD1), Maldives (8Q), Socotra Island (7O), Abu Ail Island (J2/A), Cyprus (5B, ZC4), Eastern Turkey (TA2-9) and Georgia (4L). Europe includes the fourth and sixth call areas of Russia (R1-6), Istanbul (TA1), all Italian islands (I) and Azores (CU). Africa includes Ceuta & Melilla (EA9), Madeira (CT3), Gan Island (8Q), French Austral Territory (FT) and Heard Island (VK0)."
(from )
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In adifdev@..., Jon Bloom <jbloom@a...> wrote:

Michael Keane K1MK wrote:

At 05:04 AM 1/23/06, Jon Bloom wrote:

As long as Antartica is treated as a continental
value somewhere -- and it is -- it should be included in the
enumeration.

I disagree, strongly.

The lowest common denominator approach is absolutely

antithetical

with interchanging semantic values rather than just exchanging

a set

of lexical symbols.

My comment was specifically about the IARU/WAC continent exchange.

In

that frame of reference, AN most certainly is used in contest

exchanges.

Why we're getting hung up on the fact that it isn't used for WAC mystifies me. Inasmuch as it is used for other IARU activities

(and

non-IARU activities such as CQWW), I simply don't understand why

it

shouldn't be included with the other continents.

If there is an amateur application that uses some other definition

for

continents, let's hear about it. If there is, then, assuredly,

it's an

issue to consider and probably requires a separate field. (IOTA

already

has its own field that includes the IOTA continent.)

One of the major themes of ADIF 2 is to improve upon ADIF 1 in

the

area of semantic exchange.

I'm all for that, but I don't think there is a real conflict here.

It

seems to me your choices are:

1) incorporate the IARU continent definition, such as it is, by reference; or

2) devise your own continent definition.

The latter may be more appealing from the standpoint of

completeness,

but unless the ADIF group is planning to sponsor awards and

contests

based on it, a definition that differs from the one in common

amateur

use is of little value to the end user. Let's keep in mind that

this is

not an academic exercise. What ADIF comprises must be bound by

what

amateurs practice, messy as that may sometimes be.

-- Jon

Yahoo! Groups Links

At 02:29 PM 1/23/06, Dave Bernstein wrote:

so lets consider it a 5.1.8 issue.

I would prefer to avoid the redundancy of WAC and CONT tags.

Me too.

If we stick with one tag, how about this for the definition of
Antartica:

1. any location physically on continental Antarctica

That works.

2. any island whose IOTA tag begins with AN

I don't consider myself an IOTA expert, but I'm pretty sure this will run into a lot of problems. It's definitely wrong for VK0 (Heard) which is IOTA AN-003 but counts as AF for WAC.

Further, I think but I need to confirm, there's a similar problem with some other AN groups: South Sandwich South Georgia, South Orkney and South Shetland are SA, Bouvet is AF and Macquarie is OC. That's going by the continent that's provided in <>

73,
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@...

I think we have to have the redundancy here and have something like a WAC_CONT tag, just as we have the redundancy in the DXCC and COUNTRY tags.

Hawaii is in the United States and thus would be the same COUNTRY as Arkansas, but it's a different DXCC entity. Just as some awards put the continent of VK0 in either AF or AN. I don't think you can get away from redundancy as long as you're trying to support different awards and contests that don't follow the same rules.

73,
Dave Morris, N5UP

At 04:21 PM 1/23/06, you wrote:

Michael Keane K1MK wrote:
> At 05:04 AM 1/23/06, Jon Bloom wrote:
>
>>As long as Antartica is treated as a continental
>>value somewhere -- and it is -- it should be included in the
>>enumeration.
>
> I disagree, strongly.
>
> The lowest common denominator approach is absolutely antithetical
> with interchanging semantic values rather than just exchanging a set
> of lexical symbols.

My comment was specifically about the IARU/WAC continent exchange. In
that frame of reference, AN most certainly is used in contest exchanges.

No, the continent is typically NOT a part of any contest exchange.

AN is clearly not a part of the exchange in the example of the ARU HF World Championship Contest that you cite; per the rules for the IARU HF World Championship Contest as they appear on your website <>:

5. Contest Exchange:

5.1. IARU member society HQ stations send signal report and official IARU member society abbreviation. IARU International Secretariat club station NU1AW counts as a HQ station. Members of the IARU Administrative Council and the three IARU regional Executive committees send "AC," "R1," "R2," and "R3" as appropriate.

5.2. All others send signal report and ITU zone.

5.3 A complete exchange must be logged for each valid QSO.

Now, the IARU World Championship does use the continent in scoring the contest, but it's not something that's part of the sent/rcvd exchange.

Why we're getting hung up on the fact that it
isn't used for WAC mystifies me.

Not over whether AN is not used or not required for WAC, we're getting hung up about whether a still unspecified definition for AN conflicts with the boundaries of the continental areas as those have been specified for WAC.

If there's an irreconcilable conflict then an additional field(s) would seem necessary.

If it's possible to reconcile multiple definitions without giving rise to ambiguities or conflicts, then I don't see a problem with adding AN to the enumeration for CONT.

Inasmuch as it is used for other IARU activities
(and non-IARU activities such as CQWW)

As far as CQWW is concerned, here again the continent is not a part of the exchange. In determining the point value of a contact in CQWW, stations in CE9/KC4 (Antarctica) are scored as being in SA; there's no AN continental area at all in CQWW.

I simply don't understand why it shouldn't be included with the other continents.

It's not that it shouldn't be included. What's being asked for is any sort of reference to a formal definition; that definition may be as simple as the continent AN is identical with the DXCC entity CE9/KC4.

And this is because you're absolutely right: ADIF should only be referencing such definitions not attempting to make them. It's just hard to evaluate and then reference a definition that doesn't seem to exist anywhere.

One of the major themes of ADIF 2 is to improve upon ADIF 1 in the
area of semantic exchange.

I'm all for that, but I don't think there is a real conflict here. It
seems to me your choices are:

1) incorporate the IARU continent definition, such as it is, by
reference;

Referencing the IARU continent definitions would be ideal. So what are they? Where can they be found? It's not very responsible to reference non-existent information in a specification.

I feel obliged to ask again: if there is an IARU continent definition for AN, what is it?

Is it the DXCC entity CE9/KC4 (Antarctica)?

That doesn't seem to be quite correct as both the DXCC list and the IARU HF World Championship Contest prefix table at <> both imply that AN incorporates at least two DXCC entities: CE9/KC4 and 3Y.

This is equivalent to to all entities, any part of which lies south of the Antarctic Circle (67.5 S). Is that inference correct? Is any such definition for AN written down anywhere so it can simply be referenced in the spec?

73,
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@...

At 06:56 PM 1/23/06, Dave Morris N5UP wrote:

Hawaii is in the United States and thus would be the same COUNTRY as
Arkansas, but it's a different DXCC entity.

No, in that example those do not have the same value for COUNTRY. The COUNTRY field is defined as the contacted station's DXCC entity name. So, different DXCC entity, different DXCC entity name.

73,
Mike K1MK

Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@...

My bad. I didn't even look at the spec before I made that assumption. Hmm.. interesting, I never realized we don't have the person's actual politically defined Country stored anywhere except in their mailing address if any.

(Aside to Dave Bernstein: under MY_CNTY, in the description you say US Country when you meant US County).

73,
Dave Morris N5UP

Good catch, Dave. My fingers always seem to type "country" instead of
"county".

73,

Dave, AA6YQ

Michael Keane K1MK wrote:

No, the continent is typically NOT a part of any contest exchange.

My bad. I should have said "scoring" rather than "exchange." I'm not sure that changes the underlying issue, though.

If there's an irreconcilable conflict then an additional field(s) would seem necessary.
If it's possible to reconcile multiple definitions without giving rise to ambiguities or conflicts, then I don't see a problem with adding AN to the enumeration for CONT.

If people are logging "AN" as a continent, it seems to me we are obligated to somehow support it whether there are multiple definitions or not, and even if those definitions aren't clearly distinguishable.

And this is because you're absolutely right: ADIF should only be referencing such definitions not attempting to make them. It's just hard to evaluate and then reference a definition that doesn't seem to exist anywhere.

Too bad. The test of whether ADIF should support something is not whether a reference to a specific definition exists. Rather, the test is whether hams want to log the parameter. If what they are logging is ambiguous, so be it. Unless and until those who sponsor awards and contests publish unambiguous definitions, the best the ADIF group can do is note that there is no clear definition available. Whether separate fields should be provided for different uses in the absence of clear specifications is another question.

Referencing the IARU continent definitions would be ideal. So what are they? Where can they be found? It's not very responsible to reference non-existent information in a specification.

Sure it is. This is a data interchange specification. Amateurs are creating data that they want to interchange. They apparently aren't clearly defining that data. Should ADIF say, well, you aren't clearly defining that data, so we're not going to support it? I don't think so.

I feel obliged to ask again: if there is an IARU continent definition for AN, what is it?

I'll ask around.

-- Jon

--- In adifdev@..., Jon Bloom <jbloom@a...> wrote:

I feel obliged to ask again: if there is an IARU continent

definition

for AN, what is it?

I'll ask around.

I got an e-mail back from Eileen Sapko saying that both 3Y (Peter I)
are CE9/KC4 (Antarctica) are on the "continent of Antarctica."

She also referenced the continental assignments in the DXCC lists at
<>.

I guess that's about as official as we need to get :-)

So I think this means that were AN to be added to the enumeration
list for CONT it would not conflict with the continued use of CONT
for interchanging WAC "counters."

73,
Mike K1MK
--
Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk@...