Re: Barcodes on insect specimens
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 08:53:13 -0500
From: "James S. Ashe" <ashe@falcon.cc.ukans.edu>
To: John Pickering <pick@pick.uga.edu>
CC: "John T. Longino" <longinoj@evergreen.edu>, sackley@compuserve.com,
brianb@mizar.usc.edu, colwell@uconnvm.uconn.edu,
christine.deal@intermec.com, faulzeitler@ascoll.org,
Furth.David@NMNH.SI.EDU, whallwac@sas.upenn.edu, djanzen@sas.upenn.edu,
Johnson.2@osu.edu, mkaspari@ou.edu, scottm@bishop.bishop.hawaii.org,
becky_nichols@nps.gov, Chuck_Parker@nps.gov, msharkey@byron.ca.uky.edu,
cthompso@sel.barc.usda.gov, jugalde@euclea.inbio.ac.cr,
pin93001@uconnvm.uconn.edu, windsord@tivoli.si.edu,
"James S. Ashe" <ashe@falcon.cc.ukans.edu>,
Rob Brooks <ksem@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Re: Barcodes on insect specimens
Hi John and Everyone,
I think the series of e-mails from John and others regarding the
eventual loss of Code 49 illustrate an important point about bar codes
and their use in entomology collections - they represent a technological
solution to a persistent data entry problem, and all technology is
ephemeral. We must recognize that ALL barcodes will become as archaic
and unreadable as the stacks of computer cards that were
state-of-the-art technology in the 1960's. In the long run, we must
reach peace with this reality, and keep the role that barcodes play in a
collection in perspective. We often talk about barcodes in entomology
in a kind of mystical way that gives the barcode itself some kind of
special significance. In fact, the barcode is only a representation of
a number, or a group of letters and a number, that act as an individual
identifier for a specimen. The barcode itself only allows us to enter
that identifier into a computer more quickly and accurately than can be
done by hand-typing. However, because the identifier (number) is also
printed on the barcode label, that specimen identifier is still useful
(though more combersome to use) even after the technology of the barcode
has been left behind. I mention this in particular because John
commented in a previous e-mail about the possible need to re-barcode
millions of specimens if Code 49 barcodes cannot be supported in the
future. I think this places undue significance on the specific kind of
barcode chosen - any effort to maintain a single barcode standard will
ultimately be foiled by changing technology.
I also tthink that it is important to respond to John's statements
about Code 128. In particular, he mentioned that Code 128 barcodes do
not have sufficient information content to make them useful. I do not
know what kind of information that John wants to include in his specimen
identifiers; however, our Code 128 barcodes include 7 digits and 2
letters that identify the collection - in a barcode label size that is
smaller than most of our specimen labels. We think that we are unlikely
to computerize more than 9,999,999 specimens before barcodes (or at
least Code 128) are replaced by other technology. Thus, we are
confident that Code 128 labels have sufficient information for our
collection needs. We experimented with numerous barcodes (including Code
49) before choosing to go with Code 128. Ultimately, we chose Code 128
because it is single-stacked and lightning-fast to read - and always
reads correctly. We place them face-up as the bottom label and read
them from above at a slight angle - one only needs less than a
millimeter of bar-code visible in order to read them. Since speed and
accuracy of data entry for specimen identifiers are the only reasons
that we use barcodes, we think that Code 128 barcodes serve our purposes
very well. However, in this regard, it is important not to get into a
kind of bar-code chauvanism - a "my code is better than your code"
contraversy. This places much more significance on the barcode itself
than it deserves. In fact, any good barcode reader can read any barcode
- it simply needs to be recalibrated for each one (a process that takes
only a couple of munutes). So we san still exchange specimens and read
each other's barcodes even if we choose different barcode standards. It
is also important to remember that the database of information about the
specimens is our goal, and the database does not contain barcodes - it
only contains the specimen identifers.
My best wishes to all.
Steve Ashe
--
James S. Ashe
Division of Entomology
Snow Hall
KU Biodiversity Research Center/Natural History Museum
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS 66045
U.S.A.
Phone: (785)-864-3030
Fax: (785)-864-5260
e-mail: ashe@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
| Discover Life in America | Science | Unique Identifiers & Barcodes | Correspondence | James Ashe - 9 July, 1999 |