[2010-09-14 18:19:02] <Physchim62> so how is ChemSpider Education going?
[2010-09-14 18:19:28] <walkerma> Well, I've barely started - but they have set up a MediaWiki site for me to try and get established!
[2010-09-14 18:20:06] <Physchim62> I had a look at the stuff you posted on WikiChem
[2010-09-14 18:20:09] <walkerma> Riff-raff such as yourselves not allowed, of course!
[2010-09-14 18:20:38] <Physchim62> doesn't matter, given that I seem to have WikiChem all to myself!
[2010-09-14 18:20:53] <walkerma> (I would LOVE to have you join me in a few days, actually!) Any thoughts, PC, on what I've been doing?
[2010-09-14 18:21:15] <Physchim62> A few, yes ;)
[2010-09-14 18:21:18] <walkerma> Any suggestions? I've been wrestling with finding a good way to do problem sets
[2010-09-14 18:21:57] <walkerma> Rifleman_82: Do you mind this? Do you want to look at what I'm trying out?
[2010-09-14 18:22:21] <Physchim62> I'm not sure what you want the scope of ChemSpider Education to be.
[2010-09-14 18:23:14] <walkerma> It's a range of ages, mainly O-level on up, all the way to advanced undergrad
[2010-09-14 18:23:15] <Physchim62> How, for example, does it differ from ChemSpider Synthesis
[2010-09-14 18:26:05] <walkerma> Oh - very different! CS Synthetic Pages is (sorry, phone rang) like Org Syn, whereas this site has an educational mission - lots of questions, explanation of concepts, etc
[2010-09-14 18:26:12] <walkerma> Compare this with this:
[2010-09-14 18:28:40] <walkerma> Note the links into "ChemSpider Lite" from substance names such as ethyl acetate, benzil, benzoic acid in the former page
[2010-09-14 18:31:18] <walkerma> The substance pages I created (I called these "ChemSpider Lite" will be created by bot/transclusion from ChemSpider, and will be a more student-friendly version of ChemSpider substance records
[2010-09-14 18:32:32] <walkerma> Fortunately I have a ton of materials I wrote myself - such as that separation experiment - so I can create a lot of resources at the US college level
[2010-09-14 18:32:33] <Physchim62> Core Chemistry was intended to be more centered around concepts rather than substances or experiments
[2010-09-14 18:33:36] <Physchim62> I can't honestly do much on the level of experiments (although I *am* looking at what I can honestly contribute, without plagiarizing others)
[2010-09-14 18:34:27] <walkerma> The RSC has a lot of that sort of stuff already written, but in "Web 1.0" format. I've been looking at adapting it to the wiki, as here - this is clearly conceptual, but with lots of questions for student to do as well:
[2010-09-14 18:35:24] <walkerma> Physchim62: Experimentals are just one area - we'll have the conceptual things, homework/quiz questions, training things, all sorts
[2010-09-14 18:35:31] <Physchim62> The other point that interested me was basic data. At UK A-level, students will have a data book (which costs the earth, even though it's just copied from other sources). So I've started a Data section in WikiChem for sourced and verifiable datasets that are of general interest
[2010-09-14 18:35:55] <Physchim62> I'd seen the greenhouse effect article
[2010-09-14 18:36:06] <walkerma> That data section sounds great! Can you give me a link?
[2010-09-14 18:37:52] <Physchim62> Rifleman_82, are you still there?
[2010-09-14 18:40:34] <walkerma> Oh dear - he wanted to discuss Facebook, parties, etc, and we're talking about data sections...
[2010-09-14 18:43:28] <walkerma> Physchim62: I like that data thing - we could post that into Wikiversity, and (assuming they go with CC-BY-SA-3.0 as I recommended) also into ChemSpider Education. Would that be OK?
[2010-09-14 18:44:30] <Physchim62> of course, ALL my contributions to WikiChem are CC-BY-3.0
[2010-09-14 18:45:14] <Physchim62> that's why I tend to do updates to WP on WikiChem first, so that they are not hidden behind an SA license
[2010-09-14 18:46:24] <walkerma> What's the advantage of that - can you elaborate?
[2010-09-14 18:46:39] <Physchim62> not at all, I discussed the agenda with him before you came! I promised him I'd talk about IUPAC
[2010-09-14 18:47:55] <Physchim62> Many of the free-scientific use advocates, PMR just to take one example, strongly dislike the idea of share-alike as putting an unnecessary restriction on the use of data
[2010-09-14 18:54:06] <Physchim62> They don't like attribution as a license condition either, but I cannot honestly waive that as a Spanish resident because of Spanish copyright law: I am not allowed to waive my moral rights, even if I wanted to!
[2010-09-14 18:55:53] <walkerma> (sorry you disappeared there)
[2010-09-14 18:55:55] <walkerma> That happened in the software world, with some open source stuff, which was the reason why the GNU licenses were first made
[2010-09-14 18:56:39] <Physchim62> can you email me any comments I missed thanks to my *wonderful* (not) Internet connection
[2010-09-14 18:58:20] <walkerma> I paused my comments till you came back
[2010-09-14 18:58:29] <walkerma> I emailed you the stuff
[2010-09-14 18:58:40] <Physchim62> for the moment, I think WikiChem is an excellent repository for sourced data: we can figure out how to publish it at a later stage
[2010-09-14 18:59:06] <Rifleman_82> sorry
[2010-09-14 18:59:08] <Rifleman_82> i'm a little occupied
[2010-09-14 18:59:10] <Rifleman_82> wasup
[2010-09-14 18:59:17] <Rifleman_82> sorry there were a few comments directed at me
[2010-09-14 18:59:23] <Rifleman_82> you want me to chcek out the pluto site?
[2010-09-14 18:59:32] <Rifleman_82> i'm in the lab
[2010-09-14 18:59:49] <Rifleman_82> talking to people in real life haha
[2010-09-14 19:00:11] <Physchim62> there are people in real life?
[2010-09-14 19:00:15] <walkerma> Great! Is this a research lab? Or are you TAing?
[2010-09-14 19:00:42] <Physchim62> Rifleman_82: yes, but when you've got a moment
[2010-09-14 19:06:36] <walkerma> It was Rifleman_82 who mentioned it to me
[2010-09-14 19:07:51] <Physchim62> hmm, seems we've been talking a little bit a cross purposes... never mind, let's see what comes of it!
[2010-09-14 19:09:32] <Physchim62> any comments or suggestions?
[2010-09-14 19:09:41] <walkerma> I'm guessing that the Org Synth template creates it in ALA style or something like that - is that correct? I think chemists tend to forget that articles on History, Sociology, Philosophy, etc, won't be in ACS format!
[2010-09-14 19:10:18] <Physchim62> OrgSynth is based on {{cite journal}}, dunno what style it is, but it's WP style!
[2010-09-14 19:10:38] <Physchim62> WikiChem, on the other hand, operates on ACS style, not that it really matters!
[2010-09-14 19:10:43] <walkerma> Exactly. It may look funny to a chemist, but it's a standard format
[2010-09-14 19:11:07] <walkerma> Yes, that's one small advantage of a chemistry-only site
[2010-09-14 19:11:41] <Rifleman_82> yeah research lab
[2010-09-14 19:11:48] <Rifleman_82> yes org synth
[2010-09-14 19:12:01] <Rifleman_82> APA style?
[2010-09-14 19:12:06] <Physchim62> I think they've understod that now. It would be nice to have some help to get all OrgSynth references to use the template, but let's see what happens
[2010-09-14 19:12:08] <Rifleman_82> or at least a consistent format
[2010-09-14 19:12:26] <walkerma> If we introduce ACS style for Org Synth, then now we're inconsistent with other disciplines....!
[2010-09-14 19:12:35] <Rifleman_82> i was hoping they could give us yearly lists
[2010-09-14 19:12:38] <Physchim62> and all our other references!
[2010-09-14 19:18:49] <Physchim62> The "2010" recommendations were not signed off this summer
[2010-09-14 19:19:33] <Physchim62> The current prospective date is for early 2011 to get "preferred IUPAC names"
[2010-09-14 19:19:50] <walkerma> Great
[2010-09-14 19:20:07] <Physchim62> assuming we can get them self-consistent
[2010-09-14 19:20:34] <Physchim62> at the moment, there is still some discussion on the definition of an organic compound...
[2010-09-14 19:22:16] <Physchim62> In the meantime, and this is a real novelty, there will be a seperate publication, probably this winter, of "Principles of Chemical Nomenclature"
[2010-09-14 19:22:58] <Physchim62> this is meant to be a shorter document covering only the most common cases, similar to the 1993 Blue Book
[2010-09-14 19:23:23] <Physchim62> however, for the first time, organic and inorganic nomenclature will be combined in a single volume
[2010-09-14 19:24:43] <Rifleman_82> hmm
[2010-09-14 19:25:07] <Physchim62> unfortunately, the final draft of "Principles" was circulated with very short notice, so it would be pointless for me to ask for comments on it, I've only just got enough time to read it myself before the deadline on Thursday...
[2010-09-14 19:26:01] <Physchim62> Rifleman_82: for me, that is a significant step forward, to show that organic and inorganic nomenclatures are actually based on the same principles
[2010-09-14 19:26:11] <walkerma> Certainly
[2010-09-14 19:27:52] <Rifleman_82> yup
[2010-09-14 19:28:47] <Physchim62> the current final draft changes the nomenclature for organometallic compounds, which was only approved in 2005, and I shall be opposing that in my customarily diplomatic manner ;)
[2010-09-14 19:29:06] <walkerma> Oh dear...
[2010-09-14 19:29:52] <Physchim62> so, as I always lose with my customarily diplomatic manner, get ready to stop using methyllithium and start using methanidolithium :(
[2010-09-14 19:30:33] <walkerma> Oh dear..!!
[2010-09-14 19:32:14] <Physchim62> I've got a paper ready for submission to Chemistry International entitled "Twelve months to save the mole", I've currently got two days to save organometallic nomenclature!
[2010-09-14 19:32:49] <Rifleman_82> well... if anything
[2010-09-14 19:33:10] <Rifleman_82> it parallels the change chloridorhenium from chlororhenium
[2010-09-14 19:33:13] <Rifleman_82> but it sounds awful
[2010-09-14 19:33:14] <Physchim62> it keeps me out of mischief, as us northerners say!
[2010-09-14 19:33:23] <Rifleman_82> and i don't think it'd be well accepted
[2010-09-14 19:33:39] <Rifleman_82> the change for the halogens was tough enough to implement... and i think it's not universally accepted yet
[2010-09-14 19:33:57] <Physchim62> it'll go the same way as "hyperoxide" for "superoxide" (a 1970 recommendation)
[2010-09-14 19:34:07] <Rifleman_82> okay
[2010-09-14 19:34:10] <Rifleman_82> i gotta go for class
[2010-09-14 19:34:14] <Rifleman_82> i'll talk to you later
[2010-09-14 19:34:32] <walkerma> OK - all the best!
[2010-09-14 19:34:44] <Physchim62> I'll have to go soon as well, any last comments?
[2010-09-14 19:35:49] <walkerma> Well, thanks a lot for your work with IUPAC
[2010-09-14 19:36:02] <walkerma> I'm really glad we have a Wikipedian engaged with them
[2010-09-14 19:37:14] <walkerma> Also, I started a blog. Only one post so far, but I'm planning on adding another today. And I'd love to get PC to join me on the blog occasionally - your Phosphorus Carbide blog has been very quiet...
[2010-09-14 19:38:03] <Physchim62> indeed, I always have too many projects on the go, which is why you have extremely accurate ionization energies for, erm, nine elements!
[2010-09-14 19:38:21] <walkerma> I may move it off-Potsdam if necessary. I'm also doing a Wikipedia offline blog
[2010-09-14 19:38:41] <walkerma> A new thing for me, but while on sabbatical I thought I'd try it
[2010-09-14 19:38:51] <Physchim62> did you ever read the Avogadro paper by the way?
[2010-09-14 19:39:27] <Physchim62> The final draft is almost finished, after several positive comments about the draft I sent you
[2010-09-14 19:39:51] <walkerma> Oops, I'm very sorry, I'll have to get to that!
[2010-09-14 19:40:21] <walkerma> The Wikipedia Chemistry chapter is accepted with revisions, due by Saturday, so I need to work on that too
[2010-09-14 19:40:55] <Physchim62> ????
[2010-09-14 19:41:46] <walkerma> You recall, I even asked you to co-author it, but you were too busy - for ACS books
[2010-09-14 19:43:02] <Physchim62> ah, that chapter! sorry, I'm also involved in WM España, which has been going nowhere now for about three years, so to hear that a chapter (WMF) is accepted makes my ears spring up!
[2010-09-14 19:43:47] <walkerma> BOOK chapter, sorry! Wikimedia chapters are based on geography, not academic disciplines!
[2010-09-14 19:43:47] <Physchim62> I'm glad I told you I was too busy, instead of just not doing it...
[2010-09-14 19:44:36] <walkerma> Now you can sneer and snipe without a conscience when it's published! A definite advantage!
[2010-09-14 19:46:05] <Physchim62> not quite, because Antony reminds me that I'm supposed to writing a paper about Wikipedia data validation... :/
[2010-09-14 19:46:20] <walkerma> Yes, we should work on that!
[2010-09-14 19:46:49] <Physchim62> indeed
[2010-09-14 19:46:51] <walkerma> I would really like to address the issue of structure validation - a thorny problem, but until we handle it, it will undermine our other work
[2010-09-14 19:47:33] <walkerma> I know you started something on that - perhaps we should get back to it, and then once we're "active" again I'd feel happier about writing an article
[2010-09-14 19:47:38] <walkerma> (co-writing)
[2010-09-14 19:47:41] <Physchim62> it doesn't seem to bother the other sites
[2010-09-14 19:48:21] <Physchim62> I'll look at it once I've pulled the Avogadro articles into shape
[2010-09-14 19:49:29] <walkerma> OK, shall we sign off now, and then talk again next week?
[2010-09-14 19:56:22] <Physchim62> OK, we need to ask the newcomers when that will be convenient for them, I'll let you comment onwiki
