Don't abbreviate institutional identifiers
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:46:34 -0400
To: windsord@tivoli.si.edu
From: pick@pick.uga.edu (John Pickering)
Subject: Don't abbreviate institutional identifiers
Cc: sackley@compuserve.com, ashe@falcon.cc.ukans.edu, ksem@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu,
brianb@mizar.usc.edu, colwell@uconnvm.uconn.edu,
Gladys_Cotter@usgs.gov, christine.deal@intermec.com,
faulzeitler@ascoll.org, mark_fornwall@usgs.gov,
Furth.David@NMNH.SI.EDU, whallwac@sas.upenn.edu, djanzen@sas.upenn.edu,
Johnson.2@osu.edu, mkaspari@ou.edu, longinoj@elwha.evergreen.edu,
scottm@bishop.bishop.hawaii.org, becky_nichols@nps.gov,
Chuck_Parker@nps.gov, msharkey@byron.ca.uky.edu, ctemple@intermec.com,
cthompso@sel.barc.usda.gov, jugalde@inbio.ac.cr,
pin93001@uconnvm.uconn.edu, windsord@tivoli.si.edu, dl@pick.uga.edu,
idg@nhm.ac.uk, KPerry@intermec.com
Don,
It is relatively unimportant which barcode symbology STRI uses on specimens
so long as it doesn't use a non-recognized abbreviation of "STRI" or "UGCA"
or any other of our collaborators' institutions. There are several options
that are acceptable. The compromise of only including part of any
institutional identifier in a barcode symbol is not one of them. Let's not
create our own Y2K nightmare by cutting out required characters. Because
of the exchange of barcoded material across institutions, it is now
shortsighted not to encode the full unique identifier in the symbol.
I agree that we could add missing letters to our database when we record a
specimen. This would be a low-cost, local solution for us. But what about
the folks who will identify the material for us elsewhere who don't know
about our shortcut? What about in 10 or 20 years, when hundreds or even
thousands of institutional collections could be exchanging data and
specimens based on unique identifiers? A barcode reader will not be able
to distinguish a barcode with (ST)RI, from the Rice Institute (RI), or
Rhode Island (RI), or Robert Izlar (RI), who happens to work in our school
of forestry, or ... Your proposed compromise would mean that before
exchanging any information on a barcoded specimen, some human is going to
have to re-check the rest of the label for any additional alphanumerics
that may be needed to distinguish which RI it is. The whole data exchange
system breaks down if everyone tries to squeeze their abbreviation into
some two letter abbreviation that will potentially conflict with others.
It's ill advised not to include the full identifier in the barcode.
I agree that we should work with the ICBG to get a cost effective solution.
The Image 1470 reads both code 128 and 49. The 3240 printer prints both
code 128 and 49. Does ICBG have these? If so, then your cost will only be
for the label stock.
Alternately, I suggest that all of us with limited budgets consider buying
a communal printer and bulk rate label stock. I'm working on an estimate
of what label stock in bulk will cost. It will be less expensive than
buying it individually.
Please let me know if your local rep. can get a code 128 label with 4 alpha
and 7 numerics encoded on an insect label. My understanding is that it
cannot be done in an acceptable size for insect labels. Hence, why I feel
that code 49 is the only solution that is currently available to
collections with more than 2 letters in their institutional/departmental
code.
Cheers,
Pick
>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
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>
>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 | John Pickering - 26 July, 1999 |