Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Longer Bar Codes Coming in 2005 388

Posted by michael from the beep-beep dept.
D_Fresh writes "The same thing that's happening to phone numbers is also happening in retail. The NYT (blahfreeregnotreallyblah) has a story about longer bar codes which will be required for U.S. retailers by 2005. Apparently they're running out of 12-digit codes and need to add a digit, but the code rework for this is non-trivial. Some shortsighted chains *cough*Kmart*cough* may be caught with their pants down in late 2004, since some scanners will simply crash if they scan a 13-digit code they can't handle. Enjoy your :CueCats while they last..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Longer Bar Codes Coming in 2005 More

Longer Bar Codes Coming in 2005

Comments Filter:

  • 13? Why not more? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheFlyingGoat ( 161967 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @11:59AM (#4062476) Homepage Journal
    Adding a digit would add quite a few barcodes, but why not add a couple of digits just in case. Since they already have to rework some hardware and software, would it really be that difficult to take it up to 14 or 15 digits?

    • Re:13? Why not more? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by soapvox ( 573037 )
      The problem is that the people coming up with these are short sighted and *HOPE* that something else will come around and replace barcodes, but a little foresight and planning would do these people some good, make it a 16 or 20 digit bar code, that way in case the replacement hasn't come around by the time the 13 digits run out we won't be in the same place we are now.
    • Read the article, they're going to 13 to standardize with the rest of the world.

      • Re:13? Why not more? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mz001b ( 122709 )
        Read the article, they're going to 13 to standardize with the rest of the world.

        Read the article, 14 is backwards compatible in the software, and some companies are going to that. It is just as expensive to go to 14 as it is to go to 13, and shipping containers already use 14.

        • OK, so I fixated on the part of his statement that said '15' instead of '14 or 15'. The point was that the goal was to get everything standardized as well as increase capacity. To have the US unilaterally decide on, say, a 20digit barcode would have been a major bad move, that was my point.
    • "Adding a digit would add quite a few barcodes, but why not add a couple of digits just in case. Since they already have to rework some hardware and software, would it really be that difficult to take it up to 14 or 15 digits?"

      Jeez, I would expect them to be smart enough to change to spec to allow 2^n-digit bar codes. Remember all the problems with hard disk cylinder limit addressing limitations?

    • Open-Ended (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )
      Why pick an upper limit? As long as there is some way for the scanner to detect "end of string" (EOS) or whatevertheycallit.

      These people need the Software Engineering Clue Stick (unless by off chance there is a real justification that has yet to be presented, but I doubt it unless it has to due with backward compability to an earlier clue-stick-needer-design. Maybe some hardware limit back then that prevented and EOS marker?)

      Give them the Y2K award.
    • Why stop at 13, 14, or 15? Why not go up to the length of a UUID (128 bits, i.e. about 40 decimal digits)?

      One simple reason: space. The longer the barcode, the errrrr longer the barcode. As other posters have mentioned, 13 is a standard internationally, 12 used to be the standard in the USA. Barcodes can be hard to scan if dirty etc. Of course newer systems with more error checking do exist, but would require total replacement of hardware.

      Also remember that just ten decimal digits would be enough to count every human alive. I assume there are less products in the world than that which need numbering than that! Remember that books get ISBNs (only 10 digits) too, etc.

      • Also remember that just ten decimal digits would be enough to count every human alive. I assume there are less products in the world than that which need numbering than that! Remember that books get ISBNs (only 10 digits) too, etc.

        Remember what they did to IPv4 address space?

        Lots of companies (and institutions) still hold large blocks of IPs that aren't even in use or could easily be replaced by private address space since they aren't even routed on the net (read: public).

  • Twelve Digits (Score:5, Funny)

    by LeftHanded ( 160472 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:00PM (#4062482) Homepage Journal
    Twelve digits ought to be enough for everyone...
    • Twelve digits ought to be enough for everyone...

      Seriously, it should be enough for everyone. The whole Internet currently gets by with 9.5 digits of IPV4 address space. The UPC space has 200 times more points. It is allocated per product, not per user, so there should be fewer points needed. It currently is enough to identify over 100 unique products for each person on earth.

      The UPC space is just inefficiently sliced up into static sized subfields. If they assigned arbitrary numbers to products and relied on a separate database to interpret the meanings (like DNS does with IP addresses, more or less), there'd be plenty of UPC codespace for everyone for a long, long time.

      Of course, such a change would really break all of the UPC software, so it's easier to just throw an extra digit or two at the problem.

      • Re:Twelve Digits (Score:4, Informative)

        by Nurlman ( 448649 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @01:07PM (#4063086)
        It is allocated per product, not per user, so there should be fewer points needed.


        I don't know that this is entirely true. Check out the bar codes at the supermarket-- there are two sets of numbers (plus a check digit). The first set of numbers (I believe it's five digits) will be the same for every product by a given manufacturer. The box of Kraft Mac & Cheese will have the same first five digits as the package of Kraft salad dressing. The second set of digits identifies the particular product and size of that manufacturer.

        Thus, as with phone numbers or SSN's, there is a sub-optimal distribution of the finite number of codes. Let's assume Kraft's five digits are 12345. If Kraft has less than 1,00,000 products (assuming the second set of numbers is six digits), some of the set of numbers in 12345XXXXXX are going to be unused. However, because the 12345 is a unique identifier for Kraft, those unused numbers cannot be apportioned to another manufacturer.

        Then again, I could be wrong. I shop where they still put price stickers on the cans.

        • Re:Twelve Digits (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Waffle Iron ( 339739 )
          Check out the bar codes at the supermarket-- there are two sets of numbers (plus a check digit). The first set of numbers (I believe it's five digits) will be the same for every product by a given manufacturer. The box of Kraft Mac & Cheese will have the same first five digits as the package of Kraft salad dressing. The second set of digits identifies the particular product and size of that manufacturer.

          Exactly. If these two fields weren't each allocated a static number of bits, the assignments could be much more efficient. Manufacturers that only make a couple of products would get a large mfg number and a few bits for product codes. Manufacturers that make many products would get a small mfg number and a larger number of bits for product codes. Similar to IP network classes.

        • Re:Twelve Digits (Score:3, Insightful)

          by merlin_jim ( 302773 )
          I work for a coupon company and we are on the Universal Code Council (UCC). One of the members of the UCC sits in the cube next to me. I can confirm; the first 5 digits are per manufacturer and are called a Product Family Code. What's worse, for easier accounting and administration, some manufacturers have more than one Product Family Code; for instance, I believe Nabisco has quite a few.

  • here's the article (Score:2, Informative)

    by kernkopje ( 414100 )
    Bigger Bar Code Inches Up on Retailers
    By KATE MURPHY

    In a little more than two years, retailers in the United States and Canada will face a deadline that promises technological challenges akin to the Year 2000 computer problem.

    Starting Jan. 1, 2005, the 12-digit bar codes retailers use to identify everything from cars to candy bars will go to 13 digits. The additional number (and associated bars and spaces) is enough to make checkout scanners seize up and make computers crash, perhaps disrupting entire supply chains.

    But many retailers have yet to focus on a problem that will require significant investments in time and capital.

    "Most retailers are public companies that tend to live quarterly and not look ahead, which means they are going to be hit over the head with this and have to scramble at the last minute to avert disaster," said Thomas Friedman, president of Retail Systems Research Services, a company in Newton, Mass., that publishes a retail information technology newsletter.

    Leading retailers say they have begun to address the issue. A spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores, the world's largest retailer, said the company had "embraced the concept" of an expanded bar code, but he did not respond to questions about actual measures taken to prepare computer databases and logistical systems. Similarly, a spokesman for the Target Corporation said his company was "intellectually ready" for the change but refused to comment on whether any of its stores or warehouses were technologically ready.

    But Richard A. Galanti, the chief financial officer of Costco Wholesale, admitted, "The truth is, given the timeline, everybody's still in the assessment phase, trying to figure out what to do."

    The difficulty is similar to the one posed by the Year 2000 computer problem, when computer software had to be switched from two-digit entries identifying years to four-digit entries. Before Jan. 1, 2000, millions of lines of code had to be rewritten to avoid widespread computer failures.

    Bar codes have been used in packaging since 1974, when the first item, a pack of chewing gum, was scanned at a supermarket in Ohio. The codes identify a product, distinguishing between an eight-ounce can of Del Monte creamed corn and a medium-size pair of Hanes boxer shorts. When a bar code is scanned, the information in the store's database lets the retailer assign a price and track sales and inventory.

    "The bar code is the linchpin upon which everything in retail depends," Mr. Friedman said.

    The reason for expanding the 12-digit bar code, known as the Universal Product Code, is twofold. First, there is a shortage of U.P.C. numbers. "There's only a certain amount of 12-digit numbers, and we're going to run out," said John Terwilliger, vice president of global markets at the Universal Code Council, a nonprofit organization based in Lawrenceville, N.J., that assigns codes in the United States and Canada. Second, 13-digit bar codes are used almost everywhere else in the world. The council's European counterpart, EAN International, based in Brussels, assigns these numbers, called European Article Numbers, to companies in 99 nations. "Right now," Mr. Terwilliger said, "foreign importers have to get a 12-digit U.P.C. to do business over here, which they haven't been too happy about."

    Foreign manufacturers currently pass on to consumers the cost of getting an additional bar code and creating special labels for products sold in the United States and Canada. "It's an added expense for them, and they have to recoup it somewhere," said Debra Shimkus, marketing manager at the Chicago Importing Company, a specialty food importer whose overseas suppliers are often incredulous when they are told they have to get new bar codes for their products before they can be sold in American groceries.

    Many foreign manufacturers decide that it is not worth the trouble. "A lot of companies have been unwilling to accept the additional burden," Mr. Terwilliger said, "and have stayed out of the market entirely."

    American and Canadian exporters have not had the same obstacle because foreign retailers can easily incorporate a 12-digit number into their 13-digit databases by making the first digit zero. That is why American and Canadian manufacturers of products that now have 12-digit codes will not be affected by the code expansion. A two-liter bottle of Coca-Cola, for example, will keep the same U.P.C., but a zero will be added to the beginning of its bar-code number in retailers' product databases.

    "The effect of the change in the U.P.C. code falls squarely on retailers," said Mr. Friedman. He estimates that the upgrade will cost at least $2 million for a chain of 100 stores with 10 checkout lanes a store.

    The expense will vary depending on the age of a retailer's databases, software and hardware and whether it has to hire outside consultants to make the change. Scanners and other hardware bought more than three years ago will not read longer codes and will have to be replaced. Software more than five years old will also have to be scrapped.

    "Thank God we'd already planned to buy new equipment for a lot of stores this year," said Richard S. Gilbert, director of store systems at Duane Reade, a chain of 200 drugstores in New York City. The stores have a total of 3,500 scanning devices, each costing $1,000 to $2,500. As for the cumbersome database modifications that need to be made, Mr. Gilbert said: "Our consultants say they are working on it, but they haven't gotten back to me with a plan. I still don't know how big a deal it's all going to be."

    He might want to ask John Poss. Mr. Poss is the merchandising coordinator for Ace Hardware, which has 5,100 stores and sells some 65,000 coded products. Ace overhauled its computer systems to accept longer bar codes in 1999. The company, based in Oak Brook, Ill., has retail outlets in 70 countries and more than a hundred foreign suppliers.

    "It was such a struggle to get manufacturers to relabel things for North America," Mr. Poss said, "and we wanted the same system in place globally, so we decided to make the change."

    The company hired a consultant, Cognizant Technology Solutions, which is based in Teaneck, N.J., and is a division of Dun & Bradstreet. Ace's in-house team worked on the project during the day while a Cognizant office in India took over at night.

    Even so, the project took almost two years to plan and carry out. In addition to equipment upgrades, modifications had to be made in more than 500 software programs in various company divisions (50 in distribution alone). The most tedious and time-consuming part of the conversion, Mr. Poss said, was making adjustments to databases. "Every database in every division touches bar code information, and they all needed to be reworked," he said. "It's like Y2K, where you had to go in and expand fields and find every reference to the date."

    Though Mr. Poss would not disclose the cost of the project, he said the gains in efficiency and in suppliers' good will had been "well worth the expense." His advice to other retailers is to "get busy because you're facing an extreme challenge."

    But moving to 13 digits may not be enough. The Universal Code Council and EAN International, which formed an alliance in 1996, strongly advise manufacturers and retailers to go a step further and prepare their systems to accommodate a 14-digit code. That is the length of a newly patented bar code that takes up less space. Its reduced size means that it can be affixed to small items like loose produce, and the extra digits let a retailer keep track of additional data like batch and lot numbers.

    That additional information would make product recalls easier. "Today," Mr. Terwilliger said, "once a product is taken out of the shipping container in the warehouse, you really can't track it anymore."

    Shipping container bar codes are already 14 digits. The different bar-code standards mean that retailers need different computer systems for shipping and receiving, inventory and sales. By adopting a 14-digit standard, retailers should be able to put all the information into a single database.

    Mr. Poss said Ace had added the capacity to scan and store 14 digits when it made its conversion three years ago. "Now we can scan anything," he said, "whether it's in the warehouse or at the register, and it immediately goes in to a centralized system. No more sending data between divisions."

    The cost and work of making the transition to 14 digits, he said, was the same as it would have been for a change to 13 digits.

    Representatives from the standards groups said adopting a 14-digit structure -- a step for which no date has been set -- could help streamline the sharing of data among all parts of a retail operation. It would also make it possible, they said, to identify products anywhere in the world at any time during the trade process.

    "And to think it all started with pack of gum," Mr. Poss said.

  • Anyone know how produce codes are assigned? How the hell do you go through 12 digits? Obviously a lot of it got wasted in some way.

    It seems like there has to be a way to reclaim some of that.

    • There are a lot of products out there, especially when you consider old products since the beginning of barcoding.

      It wouldn't be good practice to reuse old numbers just like it would be good to reuse dead Social Security numbers.

    • ... Obviously a lot of it got wasted in some way.

      All the dot com's used them on their common stock.

    • I set up the UPCs for my company, and basically you get a unique 6-digit number from a registrar (the first digit of which corresponds (loosely) to the category of goods you produce, and the next 5 are yours to use however you see fit (the last number is a checksum). So either one of the categories is getting close to 100,000 registrants, or some registrants are getting close to 100,000 products.

      • 6 digits give you 1 MILLION registrants and products! It must be products they're running out of. It seems like the simple solution would be to make the registrant number 7 digits, and people using over 5 digits would just have 10 registrant numbers assigned to them. Then you could figure out what new registrant numbers are unused and reassign them to people.

  • Barcodes aren't unique anyway (Score:4, Interesting)

    by digidave ( 259925 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:02PM (#4062503)
    I did not RTFA, but I think it's worth noting that barcodes aren't unique. I worked retail for a couple of years and in two or three instances I found duplicates.

    The store I worked at sold a lot of really cheap stuff, so maybe the problem was rogue manufacturers just randomly generating their product barcodes, hence a pinata might scan as a puzzle.

    When we found duplicates we'd just print our own barcodes (which always started with four zeros, I think, to keep them unique) and stick them over top of the manufacturer's barcode.

    • Re:Barcodes aren't unique anyway (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "we'd just print our own barcodes"

      Thats a useful hint to remember, next time you feel like giving yourself a little discount! ;)
      • Unless you go to a store that does this, and copy the format of the ones they print, you are going to get caught. I've heard so many stories from friends about idiots that try to give themselves disocunts. One person even tried to staple a barcode he ripped off of the back of one movie to another.
      • A barcode does not contain any product data. Our cash registers would get the price and description from a database and most employees don't have access to that database.

        Getting a discount would involve co-ordinating the effort with a cashier who would let it through, or going to Sherry's cash, because she's too stupid to know better.

        Anyway, the average customer cannot really do that anyway. You'd have to take the barcode from a product with a similar description and hope the cashier isn't going to notice, but in my experience cashiers tend to know the price of everything in the store anyway.
    • The 'cheap' manufacturers probably haven't paid for a membership in the Uniform Code Council [uc-council.org] - the organization that assigns the manufacturers ID portion of the UPC barcode. They either made one up or tried to figure out who's they could use and not overlap too much.
    • I worked retail for a couple of years and in two or three instances I found duplicates.

      I knew I had seen those 3 black bars next to that little black bar before...but where!?
  • I remember there being an automatic NYTimes automatic login generator, where you would feed it the full URL of the story you wanted to read and it would automatically fill out the mandatory registration form for you.

    Could somebody post a link to it please?
  • We have been using 13 digit barcodes in Europe for some time now (the EAN-13 standard). This is in fact a super-standard including the North American 12 digit standard UPC barcodes (just stick a zero on the front).

    I work in retail software in the UK and we had to horrible things to stupid US systems to get a 13 digit item number into a 12 digit slot. Well, not that horrid, just stipped off the check digit.

    Roll on 2005!
  • Does this mean I have to upgrade my Barcode Battler [freeserve.co.uk]?

  • kmart... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jeffy124 ( 453342 )
    i worked for kmart in high school, and can say that the kmart reference above is a troll.

    they're already capable of handling barcodes up to (IIRC) 16 digits. whether or not there's actually space on the register reciept, now thats another issue.

  • Never learn (Score:3, Funny)

    by scott1853 ( 194884 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:04PM (#4062521)
    And when Kmart reprograms all their scanners, some consultant is just going to recommend implementing the bare minimum and just doing the 13 digits instead of just going up to 14. It's going to be just like the upcoming Y10K fiasco.
  • Doesn't 12 digits give you one trillion possibilities for product codes? That seems like it should be enough...
    • It's a lot like telephone #'s (well, the old ones anyway), SSN (again, the old ones), ip addresses, and MAC addresses (to name but a few). The digit places have meaning so the total available is limited. In the case of UPC codes, the first section (can't remember how many digits of the top of my head) contains the manuf. code, so this eliminates a significant number of possible codes. Also, the last digit is a checksum, so it can't store any product information.
  • http://www.iht.com/articles/67441.html [slashdot.org] version of the article.

    It's kind of a neat scaling problem, really. How do you patch/rewrite/re-engineer legacy systems deployed world-wide with no downtime?

    LV

  • If only... (Score:5, Funny)

    by rbgaynor ( 537968 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:05PM (#4062536)

    ...AOL had not insisted on a new barcode for every update of their free CDROM we'd have plenty of numbers left...

  • Déjà vu... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 )
    Starting Jan. 1, 2005, the 12-digit bar codes retailers use to identify everything from cars to candy bars will go to 13 digits. The additional number (and associated bars and spaces) is enough to make checkout scanners seize up and make computers crash, perhaps disrupting entire supply chains.
    Oh no! It's 2000 all over again!!!
  • Is the extra digit going to be on the company side or the product side of the barcode?
    • One would guess the company side from both common sense and from a practical sense in that the Euros generate one of our 12digit barcodes by tacking a 0 in the front, which is the company side.

  • Why add only a single digit? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cporter ( 61382 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:06PM (#4062555)
    Instead of just duct-taping a single more digit onto the system, how about a real overhaul that'll fix the capacity issue forever? If they insist on using base-10, go to 16 or 20 or more digits from 12, not 13. The extra computing power required is trivial and you can get a capacity large enough to barcode every atom in the universe. If they're going to have to do the systems overhaul anyway, make it worthwhile.

    The move from IPv4 to IPv6 is an instructive example.

    • Re:Why add only a single digit? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's an absolutely wonderful example: about ten years later, IPv6 deployment is nearly nil and kluges rule the earth. Incremental kluges win, major overhauls lose.
    • The rest of the world uses 13 digit codes already, so they are just harmonizing with that. And I suppose in a few years, the whole world will run out of 13 digit codes...

    • I really hope they *do* barcode every atom in the universe.

      By the way, the number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be around 10^80, not 10^20. That's a biiiig difference!
      • Silly, since when do two identical products get different barcodes? To have enough barcodes for every atom that you "put your finger on" so to speak, you're really only going to need what, 3 (base 10) digits?

        I have lost faith in the slashdot community to engineer barcode systems. Two identical items have identical barcodes, people. For shame.

  • From the article... "The codes identify a product, distinguishing between an eight-ounce can of Del Monte creamed corn and a medium-size pair of Hanes boxer shorts. "

    Phew... that's a relief. No more creamed corn undershorts for tybalt! I gotta get me one of these bar-code thingies.

  • The 2005 Sunrise Date for North American Retailers (Score:4, Informative)

    by maubp ( 303462 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:08PM (#4062579)
    Offical website:

    http://www.uc-council.org/2005sunrise/

    Quoting:

    On January 1, 2005, the EAN.UCC System will open up a whole new era of global supply chain efficiency. Up until this date, the potential of the EAN.UCC System that is used today all around the world has never been fully realized. This is because products coming in to the U.S. and Canada that are typically identified with data structures other than the 12 digit U.P.C. cannot be stored in databases of North American companies. As of this monumental sunrise date, gone will be the inefficiencies that have come with North American databases that could only accept a 12 digit U.P.C.

    This family of data structures is known as the Global Trade Item Number (GTIN). If your company's database is built on anything less than 14 digits, you should be making important changes. This 2005 Sunrise kit is here to help you. It will cover the following information:

    GTIN Definition
    GTIN family of data structures
    Explanation of how these changes affect North American
    Databases
    A sample letter you can use to notify your systems/service providers
    UCC Company Prefix assignment changes and updates related to January 1, 2005
    Resources for further information

    You Don't Have to Wait till 2005!
    As soon as you change your databases, your company will be equipped to handle a greater range of global products. The good news is you don't have to wait until 2005 to reap these benefits. If you plan and implement now, your company can immediately take advantage of this powerful global commerce tool.

  • . . . so that those soon-to-be-implemented forehead tattoos can fit your entire Homeland Security Personality Profile code.


    Also, the Thirteenth digit will [REDACTED BY HOMELAND SECURITY]



    NO CONNECTION

  • Amusing Bar Code Story (Score:3, Interesting)

    by foyle ( 467523 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:10PM (#4062593)

    I was recently standing in line at the local Sears Hardware store. The guy in front of me was buying an air conditioner. The teller accidentally scanned the shipping label barcode on the box instead of the UPC barcode. It crashed his cash register and all the other cash registers and the server in the back office.

    I can just imagine what a nightmare adding a 13th digit is going to be in a system that is that brittle.

  • From the article.
    Leading retailers say they have begun to address the issue. A spokesman for Wal-Mart Stores , the world's largest retailer, said the company had "embraced the concept" of an expanded bar code, but he did not respond to questions about actual measures taken to prepare computer databases and logistical systems. Similarly, a spokesman for the Target Corporation said his company was "intellectually ready" for the change but refused to comment on whether any of its stores or warehouses were technologically ready.

    It's kind of shaming that Wal Mart, whom we have allowed to take over just about everything, is actually that stupid.

    On a related note, I just love the NYT. Today I got to be a government official from American Samoa making less than $20k who subscribes to the Times.

  • Old barcodes? (Score:2, Funny)

    by MacGod ( 320762 )
    Does anyone know if old bar cdes are ever reused, or when a product is cancelled, is it just retired. For example, is the bar code for "New Coke" usable for some other, less-disgusting product, like Motor Oil, or has it forever disappeared into the ether.

    Additionally, is there one governing body which assigns bar codes? Or is up to the manufacturer to make sure they assign a unique bar code?

    What about other countries? Do other countries have the same bar codes for the same products?

    • From what I understand, the UCC or EAN assigns each manufacturer a number (4-6 digits maybe?) at the start of the bar code, and then the rest of the space can be assigned to whatever products that manufacturer desires. There might be a check digit in there as well.
      This probably isn't exactly how it works, but thats the general idea.
  • From the article:

    It [14-digit barcodes] would also make it possible, they said, to identify products anywhere in the world at any time during the trade process.

    Now, slip a little radio transciever tag onto the thing and we're in busines...

  • barcode info (Score:3, Informative)

    by linuxbert ( 78156 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:13PM (#4062622) Homepage Journal
    first a barcode is 12 digits, however the first and last digit are control digits and are not used to identify the product, but to check if the code is plausable.

    second europe/asia uses 13digit upc's

    as far as i know, there are private class upc ranges, someone metioned starting with 0000, at work we use 8888 so perhaps 0000-9999 is a private range..

    this is how i thin kit is, i could be flat out wrong..

  • CueCats will be fine... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SomeoneGotMyNick ( 200685 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:16PM (#4062646) Journal
    When properly modified, A CueCat can scan larger bar codes. As long as the start/end markers on the code remain the same, there should be no worries

    Here's an ISBN number I just scanned (maybe this'll get Amazon slashdotted too)
    9780924771453

    It uses the 39 barcode standard IIRC, just like UPC

    • Re:CueCats will be fine... (Score:4, Informative)

      by NearlyHeadless ( 110901 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:33PM (#4062816)

      Here's an ISBN number I just scanned (maybe this'll get Amazon slashdotted too)
      9780924771453

      Yes, most books already have 13-digit EAN barcodes, with 978 assigned as the "Country code" for the ISBN namespace (the country name is Bookland).


      Any bar code scanner sold in the last decade (at least) will decode not only UPC and EAN, but several other symbologies, including ones that include letters. There are single chips (from HP, e.g.) that take the analog input from a light measuring device and do everything for you.


      There's good information about UPCs and EANs at http://www.adams1.com/pub/russadam/upccode.html [adams1.com]


      Some mass-market paperbacks have UPCs instead of EANs.

    • Re:CueCats will be fine... (Score:4, Informative)

      by DickBreath ( 207180 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:58PM (#4062987) Homepage
      UPC does not code 39, aka code 3 of 9.

      IIRC, UPC uses Interleaved 2 of 5. (Could be wrong on this, but definitely not code 39.) That is how they pack so many digits into so few bars. Try this experiment. Hold up a can of Diet Coke. Look at barcode. Print out a barcode for the same upc digits in Code 39. See how horrifically freakin long it is? A bar code that long is very difficult to scan. (A very skilled operator can manage to scan this long of a code in Code 39 -- believe me.)

      Code 39 has an advantage that each digit is made up of one set of bars, and thus you can make a font for the code. Additionally, code 39 can represent not just digits, bue also letters and some symbols.

      You can't make up a font for UPC (as seen on a can of Diet Coke and other grocery store products) because the widths of three black bars make up a digit, and then the widths of the two white "spaces" between the bars make up another digit.
  • From reading the article, it looks like every company is just going to 13 digits, some to 14 digits.


    Wouldn't it be best to acquire software or devices that can be expanded much more should the need arise? For example, make all the hardware and software capable of handling barcodes arbitrarily long (or just up to 32, perhaps) so that when the UCC and EAN decide to make the next upgrade, it'll be as easy as setting a variable?

    Are their technical limitations to doing such a thing? the scanners they talked about, at $1000 bucks a shot, could certainly have some kind of flash memory without increasing their cost more than a dollar or two.

    Just my thoughts, anyway.

    • best to whom? the company, or developers?

      They should just move to alphanumeric barcodes, keep them at 12,just change the database stuctures to take alphas. If you used case as an unique identifier, you could get 36 charaters per space. so now you have 36to the power of 5 items.
  • Why not just use two barcodes on everything?

  • Obviously the first thought (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aengblom ( 123492 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:22PM (#4062701) Homepage
    Obviously the first thought is why not more digits. Turns out that most of the world already (or always has?) used 13 digits. The result is that companies get pissed when they have to apply for another UPC and all that comes with it just to sell their product from one side of the pond to the other.

  • Depends on the store and the equipment... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cutriss ( 262920 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:23PM (#4062707) Homepage
    Some shortsighted chains *cough*Kmart*cough* may be caught with their pants down in late 2004

    I used to work in Kmart. Our IBM Type III registers say the following when you scan an invalid barcode - "ERR: Must be between 8-13 digits". With a message like that, once can presume that the registers *are* capable of scanning the 13 digit UPCs...and that it's a back-end (IE - Receiving, distribution, inventory) change that's needed.

    Considering that I've not seen a Kmart that *wasn't* using these old Type III's, I hardly say that Kmart is getting caught "with their pants down". They're further along the transition than some other companies that have *no* 13-digit capable equipment.

  • Just for curiosity (Score:4, Informative)

    by dghcasp ( 459766 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:25PM (#4062731)
    Disclaimer: It's been a long time since I had to deal with this...

    Format is:

    • Codeset digit (1), always constant
    • Manufacturer ID (5)
    • Product ID (5)
    • Checksum digit (1)

    The reason they're not going to 14+ digits is they're really just becomming compatable with the rest of the world, which uses 13 digits, and hoping to steal some unallocated number ranges in there (shades of IP Addresses.) Going to 14+ would be a worldwide change, which is, obviously, somewhat harder to accomplish.

    • Those codeset and checksum digits, along with the code that seperates the manufacturer ID from the, Product ID, are two thin right-alligned lines, which is also the code for the number 6.

      Meaning that every barcode has the number 666 on it.

      "And he causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of man; his number is 666."(REVELATION 13:16-18)

      Make of this what you will. Personally, I think it's the world's best practical joke.
  • Enjoy your :CueCats while they last...

    CueCats don't scan *only* UPCs. They can scan any barcoding, regardless of its coding scheme, as long as it has the start and ending components that it recognizes (and it recognizes quite a few). What *you* make of the resulting data is your deal. I've scanned 20-digit printed barcodes with my Cat.

    For simple proof, scan an ISBN. Those are 13 digits by default. CueCats can read those.
  • Sure, a 13 digit number, and 666 embedded in the bar code - the anti-christ is coming soon - it's all falling into place now.

    -josh
  • All a CueCat does is translate the lines to numbers/letters and spits them to the screen.. Doesn't matter if it's just 1 number or 100 (damn, that would be a long barcode).

  • It seems like we've got linux drivers for it, couldn't we "teach" (program) it to work with the extra digit?

    Not that I care, I only used the sucker twice just to say I had done it.
  • Back when I was still working at my Kmart, they had just finished upgrading all the cash registers to new tech, so as to support adding self-checkout registers. In fact, they had self-checks in all the local Kmarts, and I would not be surprised if that was going to be every single Kmart soon. Which means every Kmart would have new registers.

    Note that the article says
    Scanners and other hardware bought more than three years ago will not read longer codes and will have to be replaced. Software more than five years old will also have to be scrapped.
    Since they bought the new equipment a lot less than three years ago, all it'll take to get Kmart up and running with the 13-char barcode will be a software upgrade.

    Kmart isn't even mentioned in the article--I looked for it specifically when I first read it yesterday. How about being a little more careful with the facts in your editorializing, eh, Slashdot people?
  • 2D barcodes [adams1.com] can hold up to 2000 or more characters. PDF417 (a 2D symbology) is in the public domain, created by Symbol which allows this many characters. You can download a free PDF417 Generator [symbol.com] and roll your own 2D barcodes. The only drawback is that a 2D barcode requires a more precise scanner and technique.

    3D Barcodes are indeed 'bumpy' and can even be painted over.

    • The only drawback is that a 2D barcode requires a more precise scanner and technique.

      This is true, but on the other hand, technology has evolved. As an alternative to linear scanning as employed by traditional scanners, and still supported by some 2D symbologies like PDF417, a little CCD camera can be used. Many symbologies have been developed especially for this scanning technique. Matrix codes like Aztec may even be more robust than barcodes in the literal sense. It is rather easy to hand-draw a readable matrix code symbol (if it does not have to be too small :)) -- try that with PDF417.

      But this is a general advantage of 2D codes with their considerably higher capacity: the ability to embed enough information to correct errors rather than just checksums for mere error detection. Any modern 2D symbol will remain readable after part of it has been destroyed. You may rip off a corner, it won't matter.

      When reading specifications, I also got the impression that PDF417 is rather hard to implement, compared to e.g. Aztec.

  • Oh no... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Misch ( 158807 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:31PM (#4062800) Homepage
    Does this mean that I'm going to have to get the barcode that's tatooed onto the back of my neck redone?
  • Well, we had a large hardware base that can real only 12 digits, right ?
    There isn't enough numbers, right ?
    Then, why not use TWO bar codes unless expend a large money to implement 1 digit more ?
    I believe a combination of two bar codes of 12 digits will be a lot cheaper and efficient, maybe not too easy to handle but it's a fast solution until we gradually change the protocols to something more plausible..

  • Alternatives to regular barcodes (Score:3, Informative)

    by joshua404 ( 590829 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:39PM (#4062854)
    With Aztec codes, Maxicodes, data matrices and other alternatives to barcodes being used more and more now, why even bother extending the existing format when it will just need to be extended again in short order?

    Formats like the Aztec code can hold up to 3000 characters of information. Rather than re-engineer something inefficient (UPC), why not adapt something new and completely extinguish the problem?

    Info on barcodes, UPC symbols, maxicode, etc. [taltech.com]

  • Cue Cat Stevens (Score:4, Funny)

    by MountainLogic ( 92466 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @12:59PM (#4063010) Homepage
    Longer bar codes are coming to win us They're coming to win us, they're coming to win us Longer boats are coming to win us Hold on to the core, they'll be taking the key from the door. ;-)
  • The database may need a field expanded from 12 characters to whatever but almost all barcode readers just insert the stream into a serial port or the keyboard. they can read 30000 character barcodes as long as start and end are correct.

    the only hardware I had trouble with was really old or crappily made scanners that have built in limitations.. even the cuecat can read arbitary length barcodes...
  • Info about ePC tags [alientechnology.com].

    I saw a presentation by a senior exec from Alien Technology recently, and it was astounding. RFID utilizes incredibly small processor packages that are able to wirelessly communicate with other devices. The real breakthrough is that they can make these devices communicate without manual scanning, and they can manufacture them in volume extremely cheaply.

    My guess is once this technology picks up steam, they'll be everywhere, from price tags on the jacket you buy at the Gap, to the pound of ground turkey you snag at Safeway.

    Of course, the potential for misbehavior with these things is huge. But it's coming. All of the industry players are on board, the technology is in test production, and before long it'll be deployed.

  • ISBN's (Score:2, Informative)

    by Triv ( 181010 )
    From my years as a book jockey I can tell you a few things about ISBN's.

    1. ISBN's almost always start with zero or one, although that's changing as more companies get into the game. Texkbooks and reference books usually start with 9, for example.

    2. The first 5 digits id the top level manufacturer. This was handy because imprints that were owned by another company still had the first 5 digits of their parent company's code - pocket books, for instance, is owned by simon and schuster.(although many pub's had more than one manufacturer code).

    3. The second 5 digits are a product code.

    4. The last two digits are a checksum to make sure the ISBN is valid. There's a formula something like "add the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th digits and divide by the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th digits. the checksum is the remainder." I don't know exactly what the formula is, but I'm dying to know, it's been bugging me for years.

    Fun fact: Hardcover, trade paper and Mass Market editions of the same book have different ISBNs, but different editions/printings of the same book usually have the same isbn. While conserving available codes, it's quite annoying when someone's looking for a specific edition.

    Triv

    • Re:ISBN's (Score:5, Informative)

      by gorilla ( 36491 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2002 @03:42PM (#4064474)
      Almost all wrong. Most of the ISBNs you've seen start with 0 or 1 because the first digit(s) identifies the language or country that the publisher of the book is in. 0 and 1 are English, 2 is French, 3 is German, 4 is Japan, 5 is USSR, 7 is China, and 8 and 9 are used for the rest of the world. If it's a really small country, then the first 5 digits could be country code, eg 99912 for Botswana. The second portion is the publisher, the third the book, and the last the checksum. With the expection of the checksum, these are all variable length, so for example 0-340-62839-1 indicates an english language book from a large publisher, while 1-56592-528-9 indicates another english language book from a smaller publisher. The checksum is 11-(sum(digit*(10-position))%11), so the the second ISBN is 1*10+5*9+6*8+5*7+9*6+2*5+5*4+2*3+8*2=244, 244%11 = 2, 11-2 = 9.
  • Just the right size for everyone's forehead!
  • The article seemed to try to create the same tension that the Y2K bug did. This doesn't even come close. No nuclear reactors will blow up and no planes will crash, and no electric grids will go offline when UPC codes change in size.

    Retaillers are businesses. They need to sell products to survive. The UPC code is a vital component of the databases that make things work. Coupons, inventory, everything is based on it. So we're adding another digit and your ancient, poorly written accounting software didn't make room for a future expansion. So upgrade already. You're a business, you WILL find a way. Because if you don't, you'll be left in the dust. And while you're at it, perhaps you might want to make sure the UPC code space is larger than 13 digits. You never know when they might expand it AGAIN. Since the cost involved to jump from 12 to 13 is the same as the jump from 12 to 18, make a wise decision now.

    This is just a normal part of the world as we know it. Things change. Phone numbers get longer, UPC codes get longer, computers get faster, operating systems redesign themselves. You have to adapt with it. Regardless, there's no sense in losing sleep over this.

    -Restil

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close