Size of Glossary entries (was Chirality)

P. Murray-Rust (
Wed, 25 Jan 1995 23:24:08 +0000 (GMT)

The discussion that is developing is very exciting and throws up several
problems I haven't got clear views on. In using the term 'glossary' I
envisaged entries which were a very brief description of the term and
essential linking information. What Artiom has produced is much more
like a mini-dictionary, or even reference manual. We have to decide how we
proceed :-)

If we don't limit the size we shall get very variable
contributions. This, in itself isn't necessarily bad, but it needs
careful curation. I also don't want contributors to feel they *have* to
write a lot. I think chirality is a particularly difficult topic to put
in a glossary! Note, also, that more terms have crept in - stereoisomer,
etc and *these* also require entries !!

Each domain will require different treatment. Have a look at
phenylalanine (phe) and see how we have pasted in the structure. This
has been automatically generated by a program from the SMILES (molecular
formula). I have a student presently with me at Glaxo who will produce
several hundred in similar style. We would expect to put in:
SMILES (also searchable)
Molecular formula
Structural formula
Pointers to otehr d/b's if any
We would *not* intend to put in physical or chemical data, or it would
shortly turn into a full reference manual. If, however, there is
additional information, I'd suggest that it goes in an accompanying page
or pages, with links.

I suggest this for otehr glossary entries. You've written enough
about chirlaity that it is better on a seprate page with a link. I
haven't made it easy to do this, so I shall. Alternatively I can hack
the description so that only the first paragraph appears and the rest in
in a separate page.

Any suggestions?


Peter Murray-Rust ( Glaxo Research & Development, Greenford,UK, (Thanks to AlanBleasby)