[Dx4win] LOtW

[DL5NO]

I am running a personal log-checker on the web (see www.dl5no.de), which is
based on the records of the ADIF-export of DX4WIN and my QSL-records at the
LOTW . Combination of both files is done on a linux-server with a
Perl-routine, which compares several significant parts of the records
(callsigns, date, ...). Authors of logging software would have to implement
a similiar spproach, which is indeed not very sophisticated. But it works...
(...and takes some time with large logs on a slow computer).

One problem is, that the download from the LOTW is using the same
QSL_RCVD-tag as DX4WIN and some other logbook programs. If you like to
distinguish between "paper-QSLs" and "LOTW-qsls" (on the ADIF-level), a
different tag has to be defined and implemented. It seems, that the ARRL has
not thought about that...

Most logging programs allow easy tracking of popular awards like DXCC,
WAS.... The LOTW is also (or primarily ?) intended to manage credits for
awards. How will an "electronic award-application" take place? Will there be
an interface to synchronize the local logging software with the award
credits listing? I think the LOTW will have success only, if the popular
logging programs support such procedures in future - and therefore a
cooperation between the ARRL and the developers of logging programs should
be highly appreciated.

73,
de Georg, DL5NO



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan Curson" <alanc@indyweb.net>
Cc: "'DX4WIN Group'" <dx4win@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 12:03 AM
Subject: RE: [Dx4win] LOtW


> "From what I understand"
> "I believe"
> "I don't think"
>
> Since we haven't heard from software writers, it is probably premature to
> assume that LoTW is not "designed properly" and that there are any
"on-going
> issues and problems".
>
> "Writing software is not easy", but from my experience with LoTW so far it
> seems to have achieved its intended goal of providing an inexpensive way
to
> confirm QSOs.  The only thing missing is for people to upload their files.
> Whether or not that happens and LoTW is a success will not be the fault of
> those who have tried to provide the tool, but rather the lack of enough
> interest to get those files uploaded.  And it isn't that difficult.
>
> So why don't we see W4JVN there yet? :-)
>
> 73,
>
> Alan, WD9GMK
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dx4win-admin@mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:dx4win-admin@mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of DaveK
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:30 AM
> To: Mike Mellinger WA0SXV
> Cc: 'DX4WIN Group'
> Subject: Re: [Dx4win] LOtW
>
>
>  From what I understand, the ARRL did not care to listen to software
> designers(such as Paul) or share much info on LOTW design. Therefore-
> any problems are rooted in the initial creation of the ARRL vehicle.
> The League went Lone Ranger on it and they got what they got. I believe
> that any on-going issues and problems could have been avoided if
> designed properly and they listened to the software guys. But I don't
> think they did that.
>     Given the above- I am sure Paul will do the best he can with what
> there is to work with. Writing software is not easy. CQWW starts
> tomorrow, have fun filling up your logbook and good dx.
> 73 Dave W4JVN
>
> Mike Mellinger WA0SXV wrote:
>
> >There's what we need.  Another smart aleck.  Like Steve and Paul could
> >actually make a living on DX4WIN.  I grant you they could at least tell
us
> >their plans but how about skipping the attitude?
> >
> >Mike
> >