bar code caution, re Yanega comment

[Daniel Janzen]

10 Mar 1999
ACG, Costa Rica

A reflection:

Whatever you do, always be sure that there is a "human readable" with the
full code (e.g., INBIOI009876567 and not just 009876567) on the label next
to the bar code.    As technology changes, it is clear that there will be
(are) so many different kinds of bar codes and other codes out there that
there will always be the demand for a machine reader that can OCR the
"human readable" and turn it into whatever is the current system in the
year 2091 (and in the worse case, an actual human can read it, enter it
into a search engine, and bingo, discover the specimen's record in Doug
Yanega's web site database).    In other words, bar codes and other codes
are speciating at an incredible rate, and have equally rapid extinction
rates.  This is not a reason to avoid them, but rather to be aware that the
system is clearly converging on a laser or similar picker-upper that grabs
any string of human readable numbers in any font and OCRs it into your
machine.    The bar codes can of course contain huge amounts of data, but a
code number with 9-20 digits, easily printed onto any insect label in small
type (you can put 64 along the bottom of an ordinary  insect label) as
human readable, then gives anyone anytime machine access to the
computerized record anywhere any time.

Dan Janzen, Winnie Hallwachs, and Espinita Porcupine









>Mime-Version: 1.0
>X-Sender: gkamp at staff.uiuc.edu
>Date:         Tue, 9 Mar 1999 16:23:55 -0600
>Reply-To: "Gail E. Kampmeier" <gkamp at UIUC.EDU>
>Sender: Biological Systematics Discussion List <TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
>From: "Gail E. Kampmeier" <gkamp at UIUC.EDU>
>Subject:      Re: in-house barcode printing
>To: Multiple recipients of list TAXACOM <TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
>
>Doug Yanega wrote
>>I've just been doing a little research, and found the following: (1) it
>>appears that many, if not most, institutions that use barcodes for specimen
>>inventory BUY the labels from someone else who prints them - often stacked
>>codes printed by thermal transfer on plastic. (2) there are several cheap
>>pieces of commercial software (generally around 200 dollars, such as Bar
>>Code Pro by SNX) for both macs and PCs that are capable of printing
>>barcodes in-house, using nothing more than a laserwriter and archival
>>paper, and giving up to 100 million unique labels with dimensions as small
>>as 1/2 by 1/4 inch (14 x 7 mm). They don't have to be stacked codes,
>>either.
>>
>>Can anyone give a good justification why all these collections are paying
>>someone thousands of dollars to print out barcode labels when it can be
>>done in-house? Am *I* the one who's missing something, or is it that folks
>>just didn't realize that in-house printing was possible, and just followed
>>the examples of other people who had assumed you needed to buy the labels?
>
>Could be a matter of timing.  When we investigated barcodes about 3 or 4
>years ago, we were unable to find writers that would produce small enough
>labels that wouldn't dwarf existing labels on insects.  Sounds like
>technology has finally caught up with demand: a half inch by a quarter
>sounds in the right ballpark.
>
>We eventually decided not to go the route of the barcode but to just give
>our specimens unique numbers that can be read without specialized
>equipment, especially in this fast changing technological world.  Barcodes
>also always have to be the bottom label and need to be mounted upside down,
>so you must remove the specimen from the tray to see its identifying number
>or scan it.
>
>Cheers!
>Gail
>=======
>Gail E. Kampmeier, Research Entomologist, Illinois Natural History Survey,
>Box 5 NSRL-EASB, MC-637, 1101 W. Peabody, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
>ph. 217-333-2824; fax 217-333-6784; email: gkamp at uiuc.edu
>=======
>