Unique identifiers -- institution codes -Reply
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 19:53:38 -0400 From: "Donald Windsor " <WINDSORD@tivoli.si.edu> To: pick@pick.uga.edu Subject: Unique identifiers -- institution codes -Reply John, In the best of world's I would have the unique identifier in the barcode and in the text on the label. But constraints rule the world. For us, going with code 128 means we can piggy back onto the ICBG... and our costs plummet from 5-8K or more to the costs of the label stock. Our local rep. is working on smallest possible lable sizes for 4 alpha and 7 numerics using code 128 (and on fewer alpha chars). If the product is too large then I would prefer the KU compromise--include the full unique identifier in text and a reduced identifer in barcode. But, you are right, this is not a global-digital solution. But, the less than global solution is not too bad. It will be trivial to expand the digital records in our data bases so they are uniquely coded...and specimens will be globally unique to anyone who can read the label. Gotta hit the road to Chiriqui! See you Cyberville on Monday. Don >>> John Pickering <pick@pick.uga.edu> 07/23/99 01:35pm >>> Don (and others), Why do you think that we only need 7 or 9 bar-coded digits? We currently are using 4 letters and 6 digits, something that code 128 cannot do on a small insect label. Until we decide what to put on our labels, lets not limit our options. It would be a big mistake for us (or STRI or anyone else) not to use a unique institution code on museum labels. Steve Ashe and KU have adopted an efficient LOCAL solution, using "KU" (or "SM" ?) and 7 digits. However, rather than following in KU's code 128 footsteps, we should all work toward developing an efficient GLOBAL solution -- one that best allow's us all to share speciemens and data with other institutions using unique identifiers. For entomology collections, I recommend that we generally adopt the unique institution identifiers in R. H. Arnett & G. A. Samuelson's publication (1996. Insect & Spider Collections of the World, E. J. Brill: Gainesville, FL, pp. 220). However, at this early stage in adopting unique identifiers among collections, we should allow some exceptions to the Arnett & Samuelson identifiers so as to protect the investment of anyone who has already barcoded specimens. Existing labels should take precedence over Arnett & Samuelson's institution identifiers. Thus, nobody else should use INBIOCRI, KU (SM?), etc., as these identifiers are already used by INBio/ALAS and KU. I recommend that we ask the Association of Systematic Collections (ASC) to maintain such a list and manage it in conjunction with similar lists for herbaria, vertebate, and other collections. Code 128 is an efficient local solution, but because it only allows 2 letters for an institution identifier, it is not a good global solution. Code 49 labels could serve as a global solution. Several issues to consider: 1) Our first priority is to assure that each specimen receives a unique identifier. We must collectively come to a consensus on how to assign these so that they do not conflict among institutions and projects. If code 128 works for a short acronym, such as KU, then that institution should use code 128. If an institution has a longer acronym, then they should use code 49. Let's standardize the unique identifiers, and let institutions change their technology for making and reading them as they see fit. 2) As Jack so aptly noted, there is a great danger in coding only part of a unique identifier in the barcode symbology to save space. What got left out? When we go to the Web to seach for data on specimens, it becomes difficult to share info if we are all using abbreviations for our unique identifiers, either on our barcodes or in our databases. As a society, we're spending billions to solve the Y2K problem of "saving" the first 2 digits at the beginning of the year. Let's not repeat the folly of saving characters -- disk space is cheap and code 49 can handle the larger institutional identifiers that we need. Yes, I too was guilty of cutting my institutional "UGCA" out in some of my programs and data records. It saved disk space and was easier to work with just digits. However, I now have my own Y2K false economy, because I'm now mixing "INBio" specimens with my "UGCA" records and specimens. Like Jack, I'm now converting my database to one that uses complete unique identifiers. I now have no abbreviations, no saving disk space, but complete compatibility with all other collections that use unique identifiers and that don't economize on digits! 3) Regarding reading code 49, in the hands of a trained operator it can be exceedingly fast, on the order of a few seconds per specimen (if labels are face up), a little longer if specimens need to be handled. Error checking is included in the symbology, so errors should occur very rarely. Reading with the Imager 1470, rather than with the old scanner should be even easier, as it works like a digital camera. The better scanners and imagers can be programmed to accept code 39, 49, 128, etc. so that we can read unit trays of mixed codes. In short, we should all have to accept the same technological solution, only a solution that keeps our identifiers unique. 4) The folks at Intermec are helping to develop and test the technology that we need. In a week or so, I expect to test their Imager 1470 in my lab. By next week Christy Deal hopes to have a set of proof labels printed on their 3240 printer that I'll send to each of you who wishes to see them. I recommend waiting on making any purchase decision until we are sure that this new technology works. It won't be long. 5) Because of error checking, we are likely to continue to use barcodes and not eventually switch to reading alphanumerics on the labels. Barcodes include error checks to avoid recognizing an "F" plus a "leg" and an "E." Hence, let's think long-term now and not assume that technology will bail us out and let us read the rest of the label that is not in the barcode symbol. 6) Finally, regarding putting barcodes face up versus face down, my vision is that we will eventually have the hardware and software to scan a unit tray of insects instantaneously if the labels are face up and the bugs are not too large to obscure completely the symbols. Computer manufacturers are already reading multiple barcodes on boards moving past sensors on conveyor belts. When Sprague was here we made a jpg image with my digital camera of appoximately 50 specimens in a unit tray. He will test how well his existing software can decode the barcodes in this image. Although the image's resolution appeared fine, we would need to develop some "leg removing" algorithms before this becomes a practical solution to our needs. Anyway, reading multiple barcodes simultaneously is closer to reality than you may suspect. After all, Ian Gauld's Daisy project is using artificial intelligence to identifying species from images of wing veination. Must go to empty some traps in the Smokies. More next week. Cheers, Pick
| Discover Life in America | Science | Unique Identifiers & Barcodes | Correspondence | Don Windsor - 23 July, 1999 |