At the #ACSIndy
meeting there was a session one chemical formats (I hope the slides will all come online). Some key tweets (thanx to Tony
for the coverage):
But I am still fan of the Chemical Markup Language
. In fact, I started using this when XML was not even standardized yet. Even CML has a SGML background. Well, fairly, only months before XML made it into a recommendation, and CML followed. CML is flexible, which to some is a downside; to me it is a big advantage, as it allows me to easily extend it. It support ontologies to do this, and is therefore one of the most machine readable chemical formats.
Of course, a lot depends on the libraries that you are using. For reading, there are various approaches I have taken. Originally, I wrote a library (Willighagen2011
) that supported the convention idea in CML, which is a pain to many. This feature is still actively used in Bioclipse
and the CDK
! Of course, many cheminformaticians do not care too much about explicit semantics, and the community standard is MDL molfile V2000 (someone has exact numbers?), even though the improved V3000 update is already 30 years old (see the first tweet!).
Of course, browsing through all tweets, I think the session nicely showed some of the newer requirements, many required the extensions presented in this session. These extension may have been part of the original specification (is there an overview of specification documents of all industry standards?), but in many cases these will also be conventions. E.g. a common convention used by cheminformaticians is to use the bond order type 4 in MDL V2000 molfiles to reflect aromaticity, even though the specification defines it differently.
I hope all specifications of these updates and conventions will find their way to the web, with at least the rights to redistribute, allowing independent tools to properly implement these standards. (The right of modification is debatable for standards.)