-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CH$LINK: clarification #304
Comments
I would be pro multiple entries ... but ... there's only one CAS number per structure technically ... and the others are "alternative forms". So strictly correct would be to only report the CAS matching by InChIKey ... but .. the standards used are often the salt form which is a different CAS. Do we have to "comment" these differences somehow? (or should we introduce the ability to do so?) Just some examples (I've also seen "related CAS" used) https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/2256#section=Other-Identifiers https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/dsstoxdb/results?search=DTXSID9020112#synonyms |
The purpose I want to use this for is not actually CAS but a linking system I am working on for (currently) internal use (see #303); CAS was just an example to make clear that this case is not specified. |
I think that's what NIST does IIRC? |
I thought ChemSpider and some of the other DBs too but could not find quickly ... maybe I picked a bad example in |
Hi,
in the record format, it is not clearly specified how to handle potential multiple entries for one
CH$LINK: DATABASE
, e.g. a link to multiple CAS numbers. Can they be added as multiple entries and/or as space-separated entries? I think both would pass the validator. I think the former would be better.https://github.com/MassBank/MassBank-web/blob/main/Documentation/MassBankRecordFormat.md#228-chlink-subtag-identifier
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: