Copyright©2008 Antony Williams
I refer you back to the original post from which this comment was made as it is taken from a specific context.
“There is no “right structure (sic)” for a compound. There are structures which have a very high probability of being associated with a name. There are names which have a probability of representing a chemical entity.”
Is this a true statement? In many case I would agree but I have my own opinion in specific cases and let’s focus on the drug industry for a moment and trade names. First, let’s talk about me..and my identifiers. Depending who’s talking about me I am Tony, Antony, Dr Williams, Mr Williams, Dad, sweetheart, son, Tone, AJ, Bro’ and so on. However I am registered with a social security number and exist as a legal entity, a “registered” entity.
Now, Zantac is a registered trade name for the chemical here. I am not an expert in the registration process but I believe that somewhere along the line a defined chemical entity is associated with that name. Whether the chemical entity has been appropriately elucidated by analytical technologies or not is a different question. What is registered as a compound, and associated with the name, is what that name defines.
Now, there are a whole series of other names for the same compound – registry numbers, systematic names, organization numbers. See below:
1,1-Ethenediamine, N-[2-[[[5-[(dimethylamino)methyl]-2-furanyl]methyl]thio]ethyl]-N’-methyl-2-nitro-, (Z)-
I think that the Trade Name for a compound is definitive since its registered. Relative to the statement “There are structures which have a very high probability of being associated with a name. There are names which have a probability of representing a chemical entity.”…my question is whether a Registered Trade Name is absolute? I’m asking the question since I’m actually not sure. Thoughts anyone?Stumble it!