Wikidata:Property proposal/parent form of an active substance

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

‎parent form of an active substance[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

Descriptionparent form of a chemical entity used as an active substance in the form of a salt
Data typeItem
Domainchemical entity
Example 1(−)-pseudoephedrine hydrochloride (Q83093654)this property(−)-pseudoephedrine (Q27288764)
Example 2levamfetamine sulfate (Q27286830)this property(R)-amphetamine (Q2506823)
Example 3eletriptan hydrobromide (Q27130865)this propertyeletriptan (Q415032)
Single-value constraintyes

Motywacja[edit]

In many cases active substances are used in the form of salts. Currently we do not have any way to link between the active substance and the chemical form it is used in pharmaceutical formulations. We have a way to link between an active substance and a pharmaceutical product with a has active ingredient (P3781)/active ingredient in (P3780) (however, this is not consistently applied to items).

This could be also done in the reverse manner, i.e. parent substancethis propertysalt, but the proposed option seems to be consistent with other properties like hydrated form of (P4770). Wostr (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Remind me: what is the standard vocabulary for describing the relationship between a chemical and its salt? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we also have https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q106209873#P279 but I heard usage of "of" is frowned upon. --SCIdude (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very ambiguous qualifier, in many languages there is no equivalent word for the English 'of', so the label describing the scope of this qualifier is a kind of workaround (and in fact, this is why the scope between languages may differ). Also, it does not allow any simple actions, e.g. via sparql; some derivatives may be complex enough to not be considered or used as the form of an active substance. I would opt for not using this qualifier at all. Wostr (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]