Hi Vince,
Thanks for your question. Yes, we'll encounter plenty of examples of data structures that are systematically defined and consistently (or sometimes not so consistently!) applied throughout the rest of the course. For example, take a look at the "Anatomy of a MOL file" in Part 2 of this module
One thing to keep in mind: standards are supposed to be stable, but they are never totally permanent, nor should they be. Often (though not always!), changes to well-designed standards will maintain the validity of data structured according to the previous version of the standard. (You can think of this as the backwards-compatibility of standards.)
For example, during the 1950s and 1960s, chemists introduced a new element into the (print-based) data structure of systematic organic nomenclature: the R/S notation for indicating the configuration of stereocenters. This didn't make older systematic chemical names invalid, but it did mean that new chemical names could contain more information. It's helpful to keep tabs on standards development work going on related to a data structure that you use - you might be able to do more with your chemical data than you thought!
Thanks,
Evan
Hi all,
Let me introduce myself, too. I'm Evan Hepler-Smith, a historian of science and technology specializing in the history of chemical information. Right now, I'm a postdoc at the Harvard University Center for the Environment, looking at the role of chemical information systems in the history of environmental toxicology and chemical regulation.
I am also quite interested in the present and future of chemical information, of course - that's why I'm here! But my research has shown me that understanding where our information systems, file formats, and notation came from unlocks a much richer understanding of the features (and bugs) of our present-day cheminformatics tools. I try to pass along a little bit of that perspective in Module 2, which I developed. Looking forward to working with you all!
All best,
Evan