Re: [Chebi-ontology] "Elements that have no isotopes"

[Alan R. <ala...@gm...>]

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Colin Batchelor <Bat...@rs...> wrote:

> I don't think isotopy expressed as a relation belongs in ChEBI per se. It
> might belong in some application ontology. I don't think ChEBI should be
> polluted with that sort of very surfacy application-focussed relation.
>

I take your point regarding definition of isotope. To me the question isn't
whether one or the other that is right, but that the overall talk of
isotope is not clear or consistent.

>From my point of view (admittedly I have more physics than chemistry
background) the natural thing is to query for classes of atom or nuclei
with a specific number of protons and select the classes that differ either
by neutron number or atomic mass. *That*, IMO, is something that should be
possible with ChEBI.

Did you see my note about all the oxygen atom-like entities? I'd be curious
as to your assessment of that situation - namely that there doesn't seem to
be enough represented in common across them, in particular that in all
those cases there is a spectrum of subtypes by atomic mass.

-Alan