Re: Barcodes on insect specimens
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 11:10:51 -0400 From: "christian thompson" <cthompson@sel.barc.usda.gov> To: ashe@falcon.cc.ukans.edu, pick@pick.uga.edu Cc: faulzeitler@ascoll.org, scottm@bishop.bishop.hawaii.org, msharkey@byron.ca.uky.edu, sackley@compuserve.com, jugalde@euclea.inbio.ac.cr, longinoj@evergreen.edu, christine.deal@intermec.com, ksem@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, brianb@mizar.usc.edu, FURTH.DAVID@NMNH.SI.EDU, becky_nichols@nps.gov, Chuck_Parker@nps.gov, Johnson.2@osu.edu, mkaspari@ou.edu, djanzen@sas.upenn.edu, whallwac@sas.upenn.edu, windsord@tivoli.si.edu, colwell@uconnvm.uconn.edu, pin93001@uconnvm.uconn.edu Subject: Re: Barcodes on insect specimens Steve as usual makes some critical points. Thanks. To re-cap: What is important is the UNIQUE specimen identifier and that should be human-readable. And this is the lasting part of the ECN standard we established years ago. That is, the UNIQUE identifier should be an ALPHA identifier for the collection (most follow the Ross Arnett's CODENs) followed by numeric sequential number. Our is USNM ENT 99999999 for United States National Museum Entomology etc. In handling large numbers of specimens, barcodes are great as they can be scanned, etc. But they also can be used as if they were a plain old printed label. And as others have noted, once the data record is finalized with a species identification, most specimens will not be re-scanned. My problem with my Code 128 is how little it can encode. Two characters for a UNIQUE collection identifier is too few. Most museums use 4 or more letters to identify themselves and then in large museums more characters are needed for the department. These identifiers are critical if some day we are ever to build a truly interoperative global database of specimen label data. Yes, I do realize one can encode many more things into two characters if one uses different bases, etc, but that departs for the simple human understandable museum codes we have standardized on today. The other thing that is not clear from Steve's message is whether these Code 128 barcodes ALSO have the information printed in ALPHANUMERIC characters so one can read them, etc. Maybe in the future, CODE 49 will not be able to be scanned, but what is really important is that people will 1) recognized that any specimen with such a barcode means that there is likely a computer record somewhere with specimen label data. AND if we have followed our ECN standards, they will be able to identify the organization that holds those computer records from the unique alpha identifier. It is the specimen and the computer record associated with it that ultimately is the most important. The real challange is not what symbology we used today, but data capturing the specimen label data, then perserving the specimen, the computer record and the LINK between them for the future. F. Christian Thompson Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA Smithsonian Institution Washington, D. C. 20560 (202) 382-1800 voice (202) 786-9422 FAX cthompso@sel.barc.usda.gov >>> "James S. Ashe" <ashe@falcon.cc.ukans.edu> 07/09/99 09:53AM >>> 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
Discover Life in America | Science | Unique Identifiers & Barcodes | Correspondence | Christian Thompson - 9 July, 1999 |