Standardizing insect labels on INBio format + DataMatrix; other buyers
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:38:00 -0600
To: pick@pick.uga.edu
From: Daniel Janzen <djanzen@sas.upenn.edu>
Subject: Standardizing insect labels on INBio format + DataMatrix; other
buyers
Cc: sackley@compuserve.com, bill.armstrong@intermec.com, brianb@mizar.usc.edu,
colwell@uconnvm.uconn.edu, christine.deal@intermec.com,
whallwac@sas.upenn.edu, djanzen@sas.upenn.edu, mkaspari@ou.edu,
becky_nichols@nps.gov, Chuck_Parker@nps.gov, KPerry@intermec.com,
cthompso@sel.barc.usda.gov, windsord@tivoli.si.edu, dl@pick.uga.edu,
longinoj@elwha.evergreen.edu, jugalde@inbio.ac.cr
28 Jul 1999
Philadelphia
Pick, not sure if you all have discussed it, but were you all to agree on a
standardized label and reader that could be bought as a package more or
less, I am certain that there are "non-museum" types like me (and you to a
certain degree) who would buy it for use in ecological study circumstances
(a la Alas, you, GSMNP, etc.) so that as the materials collected in
ecological projects came into a museum, to be discarded or kept as
appropriate (and so indicated, then, in the individual records for them),
it would already have the bar codes on the specimens and be accompanied by
a DB with the content for those bar codes.
This does raise the specter of letter acronyms at the front of the numbers
that would represent a project rather than a museum, and the need to
register them in a central place just as standard collection acronyms.
But, I would guess that many ecological projects, especially long-term
ones, would be happy to do that.
Go.
Dan and Winnie and Espinita
>X-Sender: pick@dial.pick.uga.edu
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 15:30:08 -0400
>To: longinoj@elwha.evergreen.edu, jugalde@inbio.ac.cr
>From: pick@pick.uga.edu (John Pickering)
>Subject: Standardizing insect labels on INBio format + DataMatrix
>Cc: sackley@compuserve.com, bill.armstrong@intermec.com, brianb@mizar.usc.edu,
> colwell@uconnvm.uconn.edu, christine.deal@intermec.com,
> whallwac@sas.upenn.edu, djanzen@sas.upenn.edu, mkaspari@ou.edu,
> becky_nichols@nps.gov, Chuck_Parker@nps.gov, KPerry@intermec.com,
> cthompso@sel.barc.usda.gov, windsord@tivoli.si.edu, dl@pick.uga.edu
>
>Jack & Jesus,
>
>I'm working with Christy Deal, Karen Perry, and Bill Armstrong at Intermec
>to delevop a standard label stock that will suit the needs of all folks
>willing to use code 49 on insect labels. I've seen two formats on INBio
>labels, one which I think will work for everyone and another that I feel is
>too large.
>
>The one that I favor was on a label of an ALAS rogadine that Jack sent me.
>It was a 0.56x0.315inch label in the format of single row of 17 human
>readable alphanumerics under a 3 stack code 49 symbol, the specific
>alphanumerics being "INBIOCRI002293305". One option that I like is for us
>to adopt this format as a standard for insect collections. I think it
>contains enough letters and digits to satisfy institutions with long
>acronyms and with huge numbers of specimens. The label also can be made
>small enough to satisfy folks concerned about the cost of range space. In
>short, it's a great format that I hope everyone will accept.
>
>The advantage of standardizing on one size of label is that we can all save
>money. We will need to buy only a single dye, can order label stock in
>bulk, and can share printers. If we print our own labels using Intermec's
>3240 printer, we can get the above format on 0.625x0.315inch labels. If we
>order more expensive preprinted labels, then we can use the slightly
>smaller size that ALAS and UGCA are currently using, 0.56x0.315inch.
>
>Thelsy Arias at INBio is in the process of ordering labels using the
>original INBio format that has larger labels (0.85x0.3125) with "Costa
>Rica" above a 3 stack symbol and alphanumerics to the right of the stacks
>rather than below. The engineering department at Intermec has just started
>to process this order and has done nothing that cannot be reversed if we
>decide to standardize. Jesus, could you speak with Thelsy and others at
>INBio and see how interested INBio would be in sharing costs and buying
>0.625x0.315inch label stock in bulk? The advantages to INBio are cost
>savings and smaller labels; the disadvantage is that there would be no room
>for "Costa Rica" on your labels.
>
>Before we make a decision, I'm investigating a final option. There is a
>symbol called "DataMatrix" that is commonly used by computer board
>manufactures to track chips. It is much smaller than code 49, packs in 30+
>alphanumerics, and is easier to read. It can be read in any rotation, for
>example. Its only disadvantage is that it cannot be read by our old
>scanners. Intermec's 1470 Imager will read both code 49 and DataMatrix. I
>plan to ask Intermec how much it would cost for to switch out all our old
>scanners for new imagers; surely there currently can't be more than 10 or
>so. I'll see if they may give us a cost reduction or grant to help us do
>so. After all, we're a worthy cause with great P.R. potential! If I can
>swing this, we'd be compatible and able to read our old barcodes but could
>use newer technology on new ones.
>
>Please send me your general reactions to these ideas. Jesus, please
>forward this email to Thelsy.
>
>Saludos,
>Pick
>
>_________________________________________________________
>John Pickering
>Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-2602
>Office: 706-542-1115 Messages: 706-542-3379
>Laboratory: 706-542-1388 FAX: 706-542-3344
>
>e-mail: pick@pick.uga.edu Home: 706-353-7076
>Web sites: <www.discoverlife.org> <http://dial.pick.uga.edu>
>_________________________________________________________
>
| Discover Life in America | Science | Unique Identifiers & Barcodes | Correspondence | Daniel Janzen - 28 July, 1999 |