- From: Egon Willighagen <egon.willighagen@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:51:36 +0200
- To: Jerven Bolleman <jerven.bolleman@sib.swiss>
- Cc: public-bioschemas@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAMPqvY_Xsdi0AR4bK=mBYQkV5V-ZG6cQZTJ0WUYZMU-3ZvQHwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Jerven, On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:19 AM Jerven Bolleman <jerven.bolleman@sib.swiss> wrote: > Could the ChemicalSubstance then have a definition which is not a > repeat of it's name. The current description is "a portion of matter of constant composition, composed of molecular entities of the same type or of different types" [0]. What do you see and where? 0. https://bioschemas.org/specifications/drafts/ChemicalSubstance/ > Also its unique properties refer in it's text to molecular entity not to > the ChemicalSubstance. > Good call! bioChemInteraction should indeed read: "Interaction of the biochemical entity with other BioChemical entities". And others similar. I will discuss fixing that with Alasdair. > chemicalRole > A role played by the *molecular* entity within a chemical context. > > molecularFormula > The empirical formula is the simplest whole number ratio of all the > atoms in a *molecule*. > Yes, that is wrong. I've proposed chemicalComposition, with the description "The chemical composition describes the identity and relative ratio of the chemical elements that make up the substance." > potentialUse > Intended use of the *molecular* entity by humans. (Whom else could use it ?) > Animals? More seriously, I think the point > Perhaps, because during development they have been moved from one to the > other (These properties also exist in MolecularEntity). In any case not > quite consistent. > Yes, and agreed. Thanks for catching it. > Regarding the naming of the MolecularEntity is there a specific reason > why it is called Molecular and not Chemical? Is this because the root > class is BioChemEntity and BioChemEntity -> ChemicalEntity would be weird? > Because the idea was to use that type really for connected, fairly well-defined entities, "molecules". ChemicalEntity would be a lot more things, like you or me. Egon -- Hi, do you like citation networks? Already 51% of all citations are available <https://i4oc.org/> available for innovative new uses <https://twitter.com/hashtag/acs2ioc>. Join me in asking the American Chemical Society to join the Initiative for Open Citations too <https://www.change.org/p/asking-the-american-chemical-society-to-join-the-initiative-for-open-citations>. SpringerNature, the RSC and many others already did <https://i4oc.org/#publishers>. ----- E.L. Willighagen Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/) Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/ Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ PubList: https://www.zotero.org/egonw ORCID: 0000-0001-7542-0286 <http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-0286> ImpactStory: https://impactstory.org/u/egonwillighagen
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2019 13:52:10 UTC