PeterMR's view:
I think the problem is that 'chirality' is much too large a
concept to go in the glossary as it exists at present. Chirality is a
subject as large as, say, spacegroups in crystallography. Chirality also
contains a lot of specialist terms about which there is a lot of discussion.
After all, there are *books* about chirality.
So, what to do?
'Chirality' should occur as an entry since people need to know
what it is. But I suggest that the definition is short, and rather like:
'The description and classification of the optical and
geometrical properties of the handedness of molecules, giving rise to a
variety of types of isomerism.'
(This is not good - needs rewriting - but it shows the style)
I'd then suggest that people contributed their own fuller descriptions
and that these were referenced by URL.
There then needs to be a new section (which this mail has
prompted me to) called 'related terms'. These all need to have glossary
entries:
stereoisomer
enantiomer
prochirality
etc
We *mustn't* try to write textbooks on each entry. Also, we must
be prepared to criticise each other - but gently. The formal release of
the glossary must be competent (and that why I would err on the side of
caution.)
Look at MEDLINE/Entrez entries as an example. 3 lines MAX. They
don't always explain everything, but they give pointers. We shall do
better, but it requires pointers to other resources.
P.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Murray-Rust | "Nothing exists except atoms and empty
pmr1716@ggr.co.uk | space; all else is opinion" (Democritos).
Protein Structure Group, Glaxo Group Research, Greenford, MIDDX, UB6 0HE, UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------