[Dxbase] Status of PJ Updater

[MICHAEL ANASCAVAGE]

I agree.  The ITU is the only 'body' that would have that authority, or they
could use a range already assigned to them but not yet used.

This whole change is really confusing, in that, prior to 10/10 the PJ's were
individual by area but under control of Netherlands.  Now, after 10-10 they
(some) are now 'separate' or on their own.  So then, PJ6 was PJ6, but now is
PJ6!!  The only real change is by whom they are governed by.

I would think that a new facet of identifying a deleted country is date of
deletion, that is, the old PJ6 counts for a country, and the new PJ6 counts
for a totally new country.

I don't know how the programming is, but couldn't that also be taken into
consideration?  A QSO with PJ6 on 1/1/00 would be counted as a 'deleted'
country with country number XXX, and a QSO with PJ6 on 10/15/10 would be
counted as country number ZZZ,  Make sense?

I know it would have been easier if the actual prefixes changed to something
totally new i.e. PJ6 became PL6, but that obviously isn't going to happen.

Just a thought.

Mike K8PTT


On 10/17/10 2:06 PM, "Larry E Price" <Price.LE at frontiernet.net> wrote:

> If you mean the call sign prefixes those have little to do with ARRL, they
> are assigned by the ITU, usually by the Secretary General under delegated
> authority to be confirmed by the next World Radiocommunications conference.
> 
> Larry, W4RA
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Neal Campbell [mailto:nealk3nc at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 1:55 PM
>> To: DXBase List
>> Subject: [Dxbase] Status of PJ Updater
>> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Looking at what everyone pre-supposes, it appears consensus is that the
>> League will re-use the existing prefixes with the four new DXCC
>> entities.
>> This is very difficult for doing the upgrade in DXBase as some of you
>> have
>> commented to me.
>> 
>> The issue, and this is programming-speak, is that the Primary Prefix
>> does
>> not allow duplicate primary prefixes to exist in the database. Purely
>> related to the database, there is a way around this but Jack believes
>> it
>> would be very dangerous in terms of the logic in DXBase.
>> 
>> If the supposition is correct of re-using the prefixes, this will
>> require
>> that we delete the pre-10/10/2010 entities, add them back with a
>> different
>> prefix as deleted entities, then add the new entities. Secondly, we
>> will
>> have to go through all your qsos using the old entities and replace the
>> deleted prefixes with the new prefixes. The other option is to leave
>> the old
>> prefixes alone and just add the new entities with special prefixes to
>> differentiate them. Either way, there is a question about how LOTW, for
>> instance, would handle these qsos.
>> 
>> I really, really hope the League does not reuse the prefixes so we do
>> not
>> have to do this convoluted process.
>> 
>> I hope to get up with the Awards director at the League early next week
>> and
>> get clarification. You will be the second to know what I hear.
>> 
>> 73
>> Neal Campbell
>> Abroham Neal Software
>> www.abrohamnealsoftware.com
>> (540) 645 5394
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Dxbase mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dxbase
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Dxbase at mailman.qth.net
>> 
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> Dxbase mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dxbase
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Dxbase at mailman.qth.net
> 
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html