Re:Survey for web registry of unique identifiers
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 16:05:57 -0400 From: Chuck_Parker@ccmail.itd.nps.gov (Chuck Parker) Subject: Re:Survey for web registry of unique identifiers To: pick@pick.uga.edu (John Pickering), Becky_Nichols@ccmail.itd.nps.gov (Becky Nichols), 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, 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, pick@pick.uga.edu, mzumbado@inbio.ac.cr Pick, Before you start a registry, check out the one at the following url http://www.bishop.hawaii.org/bishop/ento/codens-inst.html. Becky and I have been following this discussion with considerable interest from the beginning. We have to make a decision about bar-coding equipment for the Smokies ATBI soon. When we began inquires of suppliers, they were horrified that we wanted to use Code 49--it's old, it's outdated, and more information can be put on smaller labels using newer technology. But, it's the same problem with all technology--we can't hope to keep up, and once we make an investment in equipment and supplies we are already obsolete in one respect or another. The matrix technology seems to be really hot right now, at least according to the suppliers we have spoken with. However, the drawback would seem to be that we would probably be forced to buy a printer for the labels and make them ourselves. If each label is restricted to a unique sequential alphanumeric identifier, as with code 49 or 128, it is reasonable and cost efficient to order a few hundred thousand from Intermec or whomever. But, with increased data capacity on each label, it becomes much more likely that we would want to be able to produce short runs of several hundreds or thousands of labels having unique information for each bulk sample--for instance, not just "GRSMATBI010403293" or whatever, but how about the trap number and date, and on and on? Of course, in a properly constructed database, the plain vanilla sequential bar-code is connected to all that information, anyway. And, looking at it strictly from a logistical point of view, it becomes more difficult for DLIA or the Park to manage. Maybe, if we bought scanners and printers for each TWIG? Of course, money solves lots of problems, but... So, we have almost convinced ourselves that we should just bite the ol' technology bullet and get a code 49 scanner that is also capable of scanning 128 and other formats, with the appropriate wedge, etc., and order a whole lot of sequential labels with the same project based alpha identifier. If specimens wind up in institutions that want their own institutional bar-code attached, they can add it to the pin or slide or vial or whatever. But, we feel that identifying specimens as having originated as a part of this particular effort, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park ATBI, will be of some historic value, at least. Looking forward to continued discussion, Chuck
Discover Life in America | Science | Unique Identifiers & Barcodes | Correspondence | Chuck Parker - 29 July, 1999 |