Hmmm...
Brett, I understand where you're coming from. But let me put it to you this
way:
Suppose, for the sake of argument, my local 10 meter club decides to sponsor
a new 10 meter contest in the spring. They make the scoring identical to
the ARRL 10 meter contest, to keep the rules simple and to permit amateurs
to use existing software should they so choose. They further set up a
log-accepting robot that can process the logs in the existing Cabrillo
format for ARRL-10 -- and make no changes to that format.
Should this club, for the purposes of this contest, be permitted to call it
a "Cabrillo" format?
Offhand, I'd say "yes" because they picked an existing format and didn't
stray from it. But technically, since the contest came into existance (or
adapted it's electronic format after) after the Cabrillow spec, are you
saying the answer should be "no" since said contest isn't defined in the
spec?
To put it another way, IMHO (YMMV): If a contest claims to be using a
Cabrillo-style format, then somewhere in the fine print they should state
WHICH of the existing defined formats they are using. If they are doing so,
I have no problem calling it "Cabrillo." But if they've gone off and done
their own thing, then it's not.
And from what you've said, it sounds like at least one software writer has
indeed gone and done their own thing instead of implementing Cabrillo as
intended. Is that a problem with the writer, or the spec? (Or did I
misunderstand you completely, George... er, Kev... er, Brettt... darn it,
the name recognition routine is messed up again, Sven!)
73, theophillius q. hassenpfeffer... er, ron wn3vaw
-----Original Message-----
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2006 05:42:28 +0000
From: VR2BrettGraham <vr2bg@harts.org.hk>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Trying to compile list of all known Cabrillo
contest IDs
To: Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>,
cq-contest@contesting.com
AD1C continued:
>>>I'm trying to compile a list of all known Cabrillo contest IDs. My
>>>results so far can be found at:
>>>
>>> http://www.ad1c.us/contest-id.htm
>>>
>>>If you know of any that are not on the list, or have any corrections,
>>>please reply to me directly (I'm not presently subscribed to the
reflector).
>>
>>The Cabrillo specification itself defines that at:
>>
>>http://www.kkn.net/~trey/cabrillo/spec.html
>>
>>Where it states:
>>
>>"CONTEST: contest-name
>>
>>The contest-name must be one of the following: AP-SPRINT, ARRL-10,
>>ARRL-160, ARRL-DX-CW, ARRL-DX-SSB, ARRL-SS-CW, ARRL-SS-SSB, ARRL-UHF-AUG,
>>ARRL-VHF-JAN, ARRL-VHF-JUN, ARRL-VHF-SEP, ARRL-RTTY, BARTG-RTTY,
>>CQ-160-CW, CQ-160-SSB CQ-WPX-CW, CQ-WPX-RTTY, CQ-WPX-SSB, CQ-VHF,
>>CQ-WW-CW, CQ-WW-RTTY, CQ-WW-SSB, DARC-WAEDC-CW, DARC-WAEDC-RTTY,
>>DARC-WAEDC-SSB, DL-DX-RTTY, IARU-HF, JIDX-CW, JIDX-SSB, NAQP-CW,
>>NAQP-RTTY, NAQP-SSB, NA-SPRINT-CW, NA-SPRINT-SSB, NEQP, OCEANIA-DX-CW,
>>OCEANIA-DX-SSB, RSGB-IOTA, SAC-CW, SAC-SSB, SARTG-WW-RTTY, STEW-PERRY or
>>TARA-RTTY."
>>
>>Therefore, the list you have compiled is not correct, full stop.
>
>Brett, I'm not sure what your're trying to say. Are you implying that a
>contest sponsor that wants to accept a Cabrillo-style log is NOT allowed
>to define a compatible format and designate a unique contest ID for
>it? This seems like a short-sided interpretation of the spec.
>
>I guess I think of this as an open-source format, and contest sponsors are
>allowed to extend it as they see fit. I believe that many of the examples
>I have seen adhere to the spirit of the spec. Are you implying that there
>is or should be a Cabrillo "committee" which has to approve every use of
>the spec? Who does this benefit?
Like WM5R pointed out, the spec is the spec.
If it isn't in the spec, then it is not Cabrillo.
If all these deviations from the spec were not called Cabrillo, then
it would be fine.
But they all define what they think is Cabrillo. Step back & think of
just what it would be like if everyone had their own take on GSM,
DVB or even VHS transport interchange. Hey, I recorded this on my
VHS machine, but nothing else plays it back. The user suffers, the
vendor suffers, whoever the user was sending the tape to suffers -
all because somebody who thought they knew better decided that
they'd do their own implementation of VHS. This handset is GSM,
but why doesn't it roam on so-&-so's network? How come my STB
says I've selected German audio, but what I'm hearing is Cantonese?
Cabrillo _was_ a great idea, but it's falling apart because so many
have run off with it on their own. v3 looks to be an attempt to deal
with failure to work with what is already specified. Just look at lists
of logs received to see just how non-compliant logs are being sent
to just ARRL (a major reason why we have Cabrillo). I recently tried
to work with a CQ WW log done with a logging product of some
significance & here we have a major product that has its own idea of a
QSO template. I have been submitting logs for another event by a
major sponsor & only recently learned they couldn't be read, yet that's
the output from a logging product from someone involved behind the
scenes who also has to deal with all this non-compliant stuff coming in
& supposedly only implements what is in the spec.
That it squeaks past the robot means nothing. If the rules for the
event call for Cabrillo, then that means Cabrillo - not what somebody
has decided for themselves to call Cabrillo. You call yourself Jim, but I
think I'll call you Ralph.
Sure, things are better now than before, but Cabrillo is Cabrillo - it is a
clearly defined specification. Anything else is Anarqu?a, Ralph. ;^(
73 & H(L)NY, VR2BrettGraham
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|