-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/03/2008, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Mar 8, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Steve Summit wrote:
I wrote:
The creation of the CAS database was obviously a huge undertaking...
According to [[CAS registry number]], "Around 50,000 new numbers are added each week."
And apparently the CAS database is staffed with PhDs these days, so it's not a trivial undertaking. There are reasons for the cost of access.
This may be a case of "don't shit where you eat." We are, for the most part, on the same side as ACS - we're all non-profit organizations seeking to increase knowledge. We don't necessarily have a lot to gain by using the CAS numbers and, in doing so, jeopardizing the development of the CAS system.
We have as much to gain from using CAS numbers as using any unique identifier system (i.e. quite a lot). It is the most widely-used and complete system for chemical identification. Wikipedia articles which indicate CAS numbers hardly jeopardise the development of the CAS system. If anything, it promotes the system as the de facto standard.
CAS identifiers in Wikipedia articles helps our readers, helps Wikipedia, and helps CAS.
- -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)