Discover Life in America

Chuck Parker - 29 July, 1999

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that we wanted to use Code 49--it's old, it's outdated, and more information can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