1. Introductory remarks and housekeeping announcements. 2. Apologies for absence.

19 Pages·2012·0.32 MB·English

Final minutes as appproved in Lisbon on July 2, 2012 Ture Damhus/July 16, 2012

International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
Division VIII
Chemical (cid:27)omenclature and Structure Representation

Minutes of Division Committee meeting
San Juan, Puerto Rico, 28–29 July, 2011

In attendance, some only part-time (the initials introduced here will be used throughout):
Richard Hartshorn (New Zealand) RMH, President
Gerard P. Moss (UK) GPM, Past President
Ture Damhus (Denmark) TD, Secretary

Titular members
Jonathan Brecher (USA) JB
Philip Hodge (UK) PH
Alan T. Hutton (South Africa) ATH
G. Jeffery Leigh (UK) GJL
Andrey Yerin (Russia) AY

Associate members
Karl-Heinz Hellwich (Germany) KHH
Jaroslav Kahovec (Czech Republic) JK
Warren H. Powell (USA) WHP
Jan Reedijk (Netherlands) JR

Observers and guests
Bernardo Herold (Portugal) BH, Secretary, ICT(cid:18)S
Arthur Maximenko (Belarus) AM
Amelia Rauter (Portugal) AR, incoming titular member in Division VIII in 2012
Four members of SPT (present for item 8): Richard Jones (chair, SPT), Michael Hess (Secretary, Division IV), Jiři
Vohlídal (SPT member), Roger Hiorns (Secretary, SPT)
Representatives of CCE (Peter Mahaffy, present for item 14.1) and COCI (Michael Dröscher, present for item 14.3)
Bryan Pearson BP, from the IUPAC Secretariat (present for items 12 and 13.3)

1. Introductory remarks and housekeeping announcements.
It was decided that JR should go to the meeting mentioned under item 7. JR had not seen an agenda, but assumed one
topic might be whether a separate division should be eventually formed for materials chemistry. It was noted that as
vice president for Division II, JR was a natural liaison to Division II.
Visits by CCE, COCI and Bryan Pearson from the IUPAC Secretariat were announced, cf. items 14.1, 14.3 and 12
below, respectively.
RMH mentioned that the task group meeting on inorganic PINs would be placed at the end of the second day of the
Division Committee meeting.
Overall, there had been some problems with the planning of the meetings in San Juan and communication with the
Secretariat had not been optimal. There will be 'room for improvement' on both sides when preparing for Istanbul in
2013.

2. Apologies for absence.
Apologies had been received from Committee members Kirill Degtyarenko, Patrick Moyna, Ebbe Nordlander, József
Nyitrai, Hiroshi Ogino, Jeffrey Wilson, and Rolando Pellón.
1
Final minutes as appproved in Lisbon on July 2, 2012 Ture Damhus/July 16, 2012

[Secretary’s comment when completing the minutes: later, the Commission has recorded with sadness the passing of Prof. Nyitrai.]

It was noted that Kirill Degtyarenko had moved permanently to Fuerteventura and thus was now to be regarded as a
representative of Spain.

3. Introduction of attendees.
JB mentioned that his company (CambridgeSoft) had become a part of Perkin-Elmer.

4. Approval of agenda.
The agenda was approved with the proviso that the order of items possibly could be changed during the meeting.

5. Minutes of meeting in Lund, Sweden, 12–13 August 2010.
The latest draft had been posted on the web board on July 16.
KHH pointed out that in minute 7, the second paragraph should be reworded so as to state that two German
translations had appeared in each of the years 2009 and 2010.
KHH questioned whether minute 8.2 summarised accurately the discussion about conjunctive names in Lund and the
decision made regarding inclusion or not of conjunctive names in the new Blue Book (BB).
It was commented that conjunctive names are often met with in printed indexes and other published sources, and that
objections to removing them from BB had been voiced on the division web board.
However, it was finally agreed that for the purposes of archiving an account of the discussion in Lund, minute 8.2
was acceptable as it was.
After this, the minutes were approved with the proviso that the secretary would make a few more minor corrections
immediately after the meeting.

6. Matters arising.
BH again mentioned the subject of conjunctive names, cf. item 5 above. Perhaps the new Blue Book should contain
some diplomatic introductory remarks about conjunctive nomenclature, delineating the historical developments. It
was stated that conjunctive names do not fit into a presentation of organic nomenclature based on substitutive and
additive principles, but it was also said that conjunctive names may be viewed as a kind of additive names. It was
suggested, but not generally agreed to, that one could keep conjunctive names if there were several levels of
preferences of acceptable IUPAC names. GPM said that the Blue Book should describe the various nomenclature
principles, but only declare preference for PINs (i.e., not grade the acceptable alternatives).

The problems of funding national representatives (NRs) were again addressed (cf. Lund minute 2). It was noted that
NRs may receive funding for travelling to the General Assemblies if they participate in the Council meetings or in
task group meetings. Task group chairmen should perhaps consider a more embracing approach when setting up the
groups so that more NRs could be invited to get involved.
However, for a start, it was decided that RMH and TD should contact the individual NRs of the next biennium to
probe their interest in entering into task groups.

The changes in routines and style in connection with publications in Pure and Applied Chemistry (PAC) (cf. Lund
minute 6) were again discussed, but RMH was still to take up the subject with CPEP and the PAC editorial board in
later San Juan sessions. KHH and TD repeated the desire to have title and final page number included in references to
journal articles. GPM added that currently the difference between references to published and unpublished
documents created a messy look (e.g., unpublished documents are referenced with their title). BH commented that
ICTNS is not fully in control regarding the format for references in PAC, but that in technical reports there is a
possibility to set up a table containing the full bibliographical information for the references.

With reference to Lund minute 7 it was discussed whether we should continue to list local translations of IUPAC
documents, articles and announcements in our minutes. GPM said he likes very much to have any translations
registered – this information is actually being used by the community. KHH mentioned that Fabienne Meyers was
considering how to record translations on the IUPAC web site. See further item 13.1 below.

2
Final minutes as appproved in Lisbon on July 2, 2012 Ture Damhus/July 16, 2012

WHP mentioned that a Dutch publication on organic nomenclature had appeared which contained material from the
2004 draft of the new Blue Book. He said this was not the first case of such premature disclosure of IUPAC
recommendations. No action was suggested, however.
[Secretary's remark: the reference for the Dutch book is: F.C. Alderweireldt et al.: Gids voor de IUPAC-Nomenclatuur
(Koninklijke Nederlandse Chemische Vereiniging & Koninklijke Vlamse Chemische Vereiniging, 2010).
The book is based on the 1993 Blue Guide and parts of the 2004 draft and contains PINs!]

TD also reminded that such premature publication may happen unintentionally. In the 2005 Red Book, reference was
made to the maximum chain length rule for selecting parent structures, as described in the Blue Book draft,
anticipating publication of the latter before the 2005 Red Book. Later, this rule was incorporated into the Principles
book (cf. item 9.6 below) with reference to the Red Book as published recommendations!

7. Find division VIII representative to go to the meeting in The Interdivisional
Subcommittee on Materials Chemistry (ISMC; http://www.iupac.org/web/ins/205).
A message had been received beforehand from Leonard Interrante regarding this, and it had been taken care of under
item 1 above. Eventually, ATH also went to the meeting (see item 15.4 below).

8. Interactions between Division VIII and Division IV [in particular the Subcommittee on
Polymer Terminology (SPT)].
To this end, it had been arranged that 4 members of SPT visited Division VIII in the late morning session of July 28.
They were: Richard Jones (chair, SPT), Michael Hess (Secretary, Division IV), Jiři Vohlídal (SPT member), and
Roger Hiorns (Secretary, SPT). During this session some general issues were discussed, and we also had a look at
some of the specific projects of common interest to SPT and Division VIII.
KHH gave the background for his own involvement with SPT. Although he had not worked with polymer
nomenclature before the formation of Division VIII, he had been asked by the first Division VIII president, Alan
McNaught, to engage with SPT to help ensure consistency between the polymer work and other nomenclature
developments, to begin with particularly in connection with a document on cyclic macromolecules. KHH stayed on
board SPT and felt that he eventually had acquired good knowledge of polymer nomenclature. He admitted that in
general his reporting back to Division VIII from SPT projects did not entail much discussion, although the document
on source-based polymer nomenclature had led to quite some critical commentary after the Division VIII meeting in
Lund in 2010 (cf. Lund minute 8.8.1). Another project with involvement of a number of persons from both SPT and
Division VIII was the polymer chapter for Principles (cf. item 9.6 below) which had been through a series of not
entirely unproblematic revisions.
All in all, it is probably fair to say there was agreement that there is a need to consolidate Division VIII engagement
in SPT's nomenclature projects. Ideas for the future included more membership swapping and joint meetings at least
at the General Assemblies, where all were assumed to be around anyway.
As for specific projects, the ones dealt with in this joint session are treated in detail below under item 9.9, in
particular under subitems 9.9.3 and 9.9.4.
A general point brought up during this session was the use of abbreviations. Not only abbreviations for polymers are
used in IUPAC contexts; various attendees mentioned ligand abbreviations, abbreviations for protecting groups and
abbreviations used in biochemical and carbohydrate nomenclature. The point was made that it would be useful if
abbreviations to a larger extent were subject to an approval procedure. No specific actions were decided upon, but it
was remarked that one should always define abbreviations in the context where they are used. KHH reminded that
there is an ISO document containing a number of abbreviations for commercial polymers.
It was emphasised that it would be good to have interaction between SPT and Division VIII regarding the polymer
'Essentials' document (item 9.9.7) which was undergoing continuous revision. Upcoming drafts of other 'Essentials'
documents should also be shared (item 9.8).
In the first part of the afternoon session, with Roger Hiorns still attending, a discussion took place about the use of
'ethylene' vs. 'ethane-1,2-diyl' in polymer nomenclature as well as in organic nomenclature as it will be presented in
the new Blue Book. KHH read a document on the subject that he had circulated a few days earlier via E-mail
(included here as Appendix A). Basically the issue was left unresolved. There are strong arguments in favour of using
'ethylene' in polymer names, and at the same time it is almost certain that the PIN for the substituent group in the new
Blue Book will be 'ethane-1,2-diyl'. Comments ranged from suggestions that both names be allowed for polymers, to
allowing different preferred names for the substituent group in the Blue Book and in polymer nomenclature.
It should in any case be made clear in the Blue Book that it does not deal explicitly with polymer nomenclature, but
does provide rules for monomer nomenclature that must be adhered to in all IUPAC recommendations. Conversely, it
3
Final minutes as appproved in Lisbon on July 2, 2012 Ture Damhus/July 16, 2012

should be made clear in polymer documents when rules are specific for polymers and when they are shared with
ordinary 'small-molecule' nomenclature.

9. Updates on division VIII projects.

9.1. IUPAC International Chemical Identifier (InChI) (2007-052-1-800) and related projects.
Steve Heller's report had been posted on the web board prior to the meeting. It is included here as Appendix B.
RMH started by acknowledging that Division VIII is the body where the InChI Subcommittee is anchored and to
which this subcommittee formally reports and gets "the IUPAC stamp". Other business, such as related to the InChI
Trust, has been moved to higher levels within IUPAC.
As a general comment, there had been frustration among the people working with InChI that the IUPAC project
system is not well suited for the administration of the various InChI projects.
AY advocated more involvement on the part of Division VIII, arguing that chemistry needs better and safer ways of
representing structure, and that InChI is one way of addressing that need. InChI work may help out in selecting
preferred structure representations which are also needed in conventional nomenclature.
RMH said he would welcome any suggestions for how to have greater interaction on InChI topics and agreed to work
at enhanced communication with the InChI projects, emphasising the interest for them in Division VIII.

9.2. Preferred names in the nomenclature of organic compounds (the Blue Book, BB) (2001-043-1-
800).
First, WHP gave a status report. He started by explaining that the current procedure was that he would always draft
responses to the comments received on the web board; these draft comments were then sent to Henri Favre (HF), who
could agree or disagree, but in any case a response was agreed upon that was finally posted on the web board.

In this way Chapters 1 and 2 had been finished by April 5, 2011. Ursula Bünzli-Trepp (UBT) had then submitted
comments to the comments from WHP/HF and these were still to be reviewed.
Chapter 3 had been finished on June 27, and new comments from UBT were to be reviewed.
Chapter 4: all comments had been reviewed. Section P-44.2 (seniority of parent structures) was being revised to make
it shorter and more precise, based on comments by AY.
Chapter 5: section P-58.2 (indicated and added hydrogen) had been revised based on comments from JB and the
revision posted. Responses to comments by UBT had been posted.
Chapter 6: Sections P-60 through P-67: UBT's comments had been fully reviewed and responses posted. Section P-65
(esters subsection) was being reviewed following comments from JB and AY. For section P-67, UBT's second round
of comments were to be reviewed.
For P-68 to P-69, UBT's comments were under review according to the above procedure.
Chapter 7: TD's comments had been reviewed and responses posted. UBT's comments were under review by WHP.
Nothing had been done in Chapters 8 to 10. Comments (but not many) had been received from AY (Chapters 8 and
10), P. Mata (Chapter 9), and GPM (Chapter 10).

There was then some discussion. WHP remarked that many comments submitted in the current round were identical
to comments made several years ago. Some attendees replied that this was true but happened because their old
comments had not led to the desired revisions. TD said he did not agree with the responses to Chapter 7 but saw no
point in resubmitting the same comments a third time. JB said some changes that had been made were simply wrong,
e.g. in connection with prefixes. JB said he could not use Chapter 8 as it was and would submit comments.
Obviously, in some cases there are several possible solutions to a problem, so AY asked whether some items should
not be put to a regular vote in the Committee.
Specific examples discussed included the substituent group prefixes 'cyclohexanecarbonyl' vs. 'cyclohexylcarbonyl'
and '...amido' vs. 'acylamino'; the use of glycine as a parent; and the open list of parents in the natural products
chapter. Also, for amino acids, e.g. alanine, and carbohydrates, where should we draw the line between the use of
specialist nomenclature for those areas and general nomenclature (example mentioned: fluorocarbohydrates). As for
the first issue, HF had replied that 'cyclohexanecarbonyl' had been allowed since 1979 and was the only choice given
in the 1993 Guide. JB said the 'amido' form is error-prone when coding. On the other hand, GPM said he believed the
'amido' form is recommended in carbohydrate nomenclature.
RMH hoped for more good discussion on the web board of these still outstanding problems but said that we could not
go through all cases from the past discussions and vote on them. We need to get the BB published. GJL agreed and
said a line must be drawn in the sand, and only WHP could judge about where to draw it. WHP said he had no
4
Final minutes as appproved in Lisbon on July 2, 2012 Ture Damhus/July 16, 2012

intention of continuing discussions beyond the current review round and stressed that we need to get comments in for
Chapters 8 through 10.

RMH said we must acknowledge the problems that may remain when completing the BB, and GPM and KHH said
that while typos are unavoidable in a large tome like this, all efforts must be done to remove inconsistencies.
Several attendees stressed the importance of making it clear where changes had been made in the BB vs. earlier
recommendations. JB said the boxes in the main text of the BB highlighting changes were not sufficient. WHP said a
list of changes had been prepared in 2004 and we should perhaps circulate that list again. KHH said such a list should
be part of an introductory chapter.

It was also mentioned that it is important to stress in the BB that is does not deal with polymer nomenclature (cf.
discussion under item 8 above).

Regarding ICTNS review, BH said ICTNS does not in general foresee a full review of a colour book. With Purple
Book II a special case had arisen because of severe inconsistencies in the drafts, which meant that eventually a full
review of the book was made.

WHP was to see Janet Freshwater from the RSC about the drawings in the BB. There were some issues about
compatibility of computer programs. WHP had had to use three different programs while working at the BB.
Apparently the RSC was not prepared to redraw WHP's drawings.

9.3. (cid:27)omenclature of cyclic peptides (2004-024-1-800).
No progress was reported.

9.4. (cid:27)omenclature of phosphorus-containing compounds of biochemical importance (2006-019-1-800).
No progress was reported.

9.5. Comparison of procedures for naming hydro derivatives of fused ring systems.
No progress had been made. There was a brief discussion of what was the most recent version of the document and
what should be done: should it be completed as a technical report or as a recommendation. AM, AY and JB expressed
an interest in working with this.
[Secretary's remark: soon after the meeting, there were a number of E-mail exchanges that finally led to the circulation of what
was probably the most recent version (dating back to August 2006).]

9.6. Second edition of Principles of Chemical (cid:27)omenclature −−−− A Guide to IUPAC Recommendations
(2006-029-1-800).
GJL outlined the recent history of the project. There had been a meeting between several of the authors and RSC staff
in March 2011 in Cambridge where it had been explained that the editorial work was not carried out there but in
India! As a consequence, it had not been possible to sit together with the people actually preparing the book to
discuss a number of details of layout, typography etc. The placement of charge numbers relative to subscripts, e.g. in
a formula like Hg 2+, had been one troublesome issue.
2
It was commented that IUPAC at large should be made aware that the RSC operates in this way.
A positive aspect had been that the RSC was rather forthcoming in terms of having several rounds of proofreading
and correcting according to the needs of the project.
The polymer chapter had been through a particularly difficult series of revisions involving a number of persons.
Making the ends meet had not been an easy task as seen from the editor's desk.
Also, there had been some last-minute discussion about terminology used in describing nomenclature, such as the
possible distinction between 'suffix' and 'ending' and the use of the terms 'characteristic group'/'principal
group'/'functional group'. The point was made that when the chapter on substitutive nomenclature introduced a
distinction between 'suffix' and 'ending', even though common dictionaries could be read to consider them as
equivalent designations, that distinction must be carried through in the entire book.
The discussion resulted in a general consensus that it would be useful to have a project on 'nomenclature terminology'
in Division VIII.
In any case, GJL stressed that we had to close all discussions immediately after San Juan in order to keep to the
publication schedule. He mentioned a flyer that the RSC had prepared with a view to advertising the book at the IYC
closing ceremony in Brussels on December 1, at which time the book was expected to have been published.
5
Final minutes as appproved in Lisbon on July 2, 2012 Ture Damhus/July 16, 2012

[Which indeed happened − Secretary's remark.]

GJL finally mentioned that as plans looked now, this meeting might be his last appearance in a IUPAC context. He
was applauded by the Committee for his work with Principles.

9.7. Preferred names for inorganic compounds (2006-038-1-800). The inorganic PINS group was to meet
after the Division VIII meeting so there was not much to report. There was a new version of the document on the use
of kappa terms (from June) to look at. RMH said the next subject to be looked at more closely was the choice of
central atoms. WHP wished to comment on the kappa draft.

9.8. Basic Guidelines to the (cid:27)omenclature of Organic and Inorganic (cid:27)omenclature ('Essentials' of
organic and inorganic nomenclature) (2010-055-1-800).
A meeting of the task group had been held on July 27. These two Essentials were not as advanced as the polymers
Essentials (see item 9.9.7 below). Parts of them had yet to be drafted (e.g. inorganic oxo acids by TD). Various
formal items had been discussed, such as: allocation of ISBN numbers to these publications; should they appear in
PAC; interaction with CCE; timing and publicising in relation to the International Year of Chemistry; possible
inclusion of 2-D barcodes so background documents and future updated versions of the Essentials could be accessed
via iPhone apps, etc.; should other name types than IUPAC's be included, in particular CAS names, inverted and/or
uninverted.

9.9. Polymer projects (with Division IV).
[Secretary's remark: In general, these projects were to be discussed at task group meetings and meetings in the Division IV
Subcommittee on Polymer Terminology (SPT) at meetings to be held in San Juan after the Division VIII Committee meeting.]

9.9.1. Source-Based (cid:27)omenclature of Single-Strand Organic Polymers (2003-042-1-800).
There had been rather extensive discussion on the Division VIII web board after the Lund meeting in August
2010 based on the version of the project document dealt with there. A slightly revised version of the document
(now entitled 'Source-Based Nomenclature for Single-Strand Linear and Graft Organic Polymers') and a
summary of the commentary made on the web board were to be discussed at the task group meeting in San Juan
a few days later.

9.9.2. (cid:27)omenclature for Chemically Modified Polymers (1999-051-1-800).
No progress was reported.

9.9.3. (cid:27)omenclature for Rotaxane Polymers (2007-009-1-800).
The draft document on the web board, entitled Terminology Relating to and (cid:18)omenclature for Macromolecular
Rotaxanes and Pseudorotaxanes, was discussed and certain parts of it displayed on the screen. Specific issues
were the use of italics for highlighting glossary entries in the glossary itself as well as in the main text of the
document, and the graphical representation of carbonyl groups such as in the structure drawing on p. 20.
Several attendees commented that italics could be used in the way done as long as their use was explained in
the introduction to the paper.
A discussion also arose regarding the use in the document of crown names for which rules have not been laid
down. It was not always possible to work out the structure from the name. PH remarked that such names were
originally only constructed by Pedersen for crown ethers of the oxyethane-1,2-diyl type, but GPM said the
IUPAC document on organic class names from 1994 contains a broader definition of ‘crown compounds’. It
was concluded that there is a need for a Division VIII project on crown names. It was mentioned that there is an
Angewandte Chemie review which is relevant to the subject.

9.9.4. Terminology and Structure-Based (cid:27)omenclature of Dendritic and Hyperbranched Polymers
(2001-081-1-800; J. Kahovec, A. Fradet). (Report by KHH.)
Since the meeting in July 2010, after which a revised draft of the terminology part was prepared, the task group
had met in Prague in December 2010 and discussed the complete terminology section again. Thereafter,
examples were collected in order to finally decide on the selection rules for the determination of the preferred
constitutional repeating unit (CRU). The decision was that first the structure of the preferred CRU will be
selected and that then its structure would determine the size of the core unit and the end-groups. The result was
6
Final minutes as appproved in Lisbon on July 2, 2012 Ture Damhus/July 16, 2012

two further revised drafts since December 2010. Another recent revision was available for the task group
meeting during the SPT meeting in San Juan the following week.
The intention was to keep the two parts together in one document.

9.9.5. Preferred (cid:27)ames for Polymers – a list of preferred, acceptable (other IUPAC-approved) and not
acceptable (wrong or outdated) names for polymers (2008-015-1-400). (Report by KHH.)
Since the 2010 meeting of the task group during the SPT meeting in Glasgow, the task group leader, Werner
Mormann, and KHH had extracted all names of constitutional units (CUs) appearing in two of the IUPAC
documents and put them into a table where some of the names had been preliminarily classified as preferred,
acceptable and not acceptable. This table had since then been used by one other task group member as a sample
for his work on a third document. The results were to be available during the SPT meeting in San Juan the
following week.
Computer problems had delayed the work and had necessitated that some of it was done by hand.
The prepared tables were now to be regarded as examples which should be used by all the members of the task
group for the work on all other IUPAC documents on polymer nomenclature. After completion of this work all
extracts were to be combined in one document and a final classification of all names for CUs as preferred,
acceptable and not acceptable (outdated/obsolete, ambiguous, wrong) to take place.

9.9.6. Revision of IUPAC Recommendations on Macromolecular (cid:27)omenclature – Guide for Authors of
Papers and Reports in Polymer Science and Technology (2008-020-1-400).
The TG Leader (PH) reported that steady progress continued to be made and the document was now in its ninth
version. The TG was to meet during the SPT meeting. Hopefully the project would be completed by the next
Division VIII meeting.

9.9.7. A brief guide to polymer nomenclature (polymers 'Essentials') (2008-032-1-400). (Report by KHH.)
Since the last meeting of the task group during the SPT meeting in Glasgow, there had been several revisions of
the document. It was presently under review by some journal editors in the field of polymer sciences. Positive
feedback from one of them had already been received. The task group was expected to meet during the SPT
meeting in San Juan the following week. Also, a meeting of some task group members with journal editors to
discuss the draft document was planned for 27 August at the ACS Meeting in Denver. After that, the task group
was to discuss comments by e-mail and make necessary changes.

9.9.8. Definitions and (cid:27)otations Relating to Stereochemical Aspects in Polymer Science (2009-047-1-400).
(Report by KHH.)
Since the constituting meeting during the meeting of the SPT in July 2010 in Glasgow, only minor discussion
points had been interchanged between task group members. The next meeting was to take place during the SPT
meeting in San Juan the following week.

9.9.9. Guidelines for abbreviating polymer names (2006-004-1-400; J. He). (Report by KHH.)
Since the last meeting of the task group during the SPT meeting in July 2009 in Glasgow, there had been three
revised drafts. The task group was to meet during the SPT meeting in San Juan the following week to discuss
and hopefully finalise a newly added section on polymers made from stereoisomeric monomers. The revision
of the appendix in which IUPAC names are to be assigned for all entries had still to be done.

9.10. (cid:27)omenclature of flavonoids (2009-018-2-800).
AR reported that there had been profitable discussions in Lisbon at a meeting in April 2011 and many examples had
been worked out. A further meeting had been held in San Juan just before the Division VIII Committee meeting, and
a meeting was scheduled in Cambridge in May of 2012. It was mentioned that it might be useful to take the document
to conferences for flavonoids experts and get some reactions there.

9.11. Other interdivisional projects.
9.11.1. Recommendations for nomenclature and databases for biochemical thermodynamics (2006-023-
3-100).
GPM reported that the differences of opinion between IUPAC and IUBMB had not been resolved, but the
document was now going to be published by the biochemists, and he concluded that IUPAC had missed a
chance to influence a paper that is, in actual fact, not about nomenclature.
7
Final minutes as appproved in Lisbon on July 2, 2012 Ture Damhus/July 16, 2012

9.11.2. Coordination polymers and metal-organic frameworks: nomenclature guidelines (2009-012-1).
ATH noted that this had been mentioned at the meeting in the subcommittee on materials the day before (cf.
item 7), the task group chairman (Lars Öhrström) basically just noting the existence of the project.

9.11.3. Glossary of small molecules of biological interest (2009-022-2-800).
GPM reported that a preliminary meeting had been held in Lisbon in 2010 in connection with the annual JCBN
meeting, and that a further meeting was being planned for the autumn of 2011. The discussion was still about
what to include for each molecule being dealt with in the project.

10. Future projects/activities.

10.1. Graphical representation of reactions (W.G. Town?).
RMH mentioned that one of the young observers present at the GA might be interested. GPM said this project is
badly needed. JB said we should maybe hook into the InChI reaction schemes group. AY said he would mention it in
the InChI group.

10.2. Graphical representation of polymers (JK, KHH).
KHH said this project is dormant. AY anticipated input from the InChI project later in the fall. KHH was to check
with the SPT at their upcoming meeting, also in San Juan.

10.3. Metallacycles (ATH, WHP).
ATH said there was no progress regarding metallacycles. He had talked with EN about certain (other) problems in
organometallic nomenclature that arose during the work on the organometallics chapter for the Principles book, and
which would justify a larger project, possibly with a view to producing a separate book on organometallic
nomenclature.

10.4. Boron nomenclature.
Michael Beckett was to be approached about this when he joins the Division for the next biennium.

10.5. Division VIII activities in the International Year of Chemistry 2011.
The 'Essentials' (items 9.8 and 9.9.7) and the Principles book (item 9.6) have been considered IYC activities in
Division VIII.

10.6. Other projects.
– Rotaxane stereochemistry. AY said there was no news.
– Delocalised systems. It was decided that TD would convene a separate meeting following the Division
Committee meeting to get this project moving. The old Hellwinkel document with certian proposals for naming
delocalised systems is available as a pdf file (contact to KHH or TD).
– Inorganic and coordination polymers (Richard Jones). This had been briefly touched upon during the
meeting referred to under item 8. DJ was expecting approval from both Division IV and VIII during the San Juan
GA so that the project would become operative soon after.
– Crown nomenclature (see item 9.9.3).
– It was mentioned that there is a need for standardising 'nomenclature terminology', i.e., IUPAC must define
the terms used in presenting its nomenclature recommendations (cf. item 9.6). This terminology must be in
agreement with what is in the Gold Book as far as possible. GJL said he would mention these thoughts in
ICTNS.
– A new project on abbreviations for protecting groups in particularly carbohydrate chemistry had been set
up under the auspices of Division III with Margaret Brimble as chair. AR and RMH had become members of the
task group.
– GPM mentioned the document on italic and roman fonts (cf. Lund minute 13.5). He had had a look at it, and
said it involves much more than nomenclature. No specific action taken.

8
Final minutes as appproved in Lisbon on July 2, 2012 Ture Damhus/July 16, 2012

11. Membership.

11.1. Status of Division VIII Committee membership.
There were a number of changes in the lists of titular and associate members, and the roster of national representives
was not complete yet.
[Secretary's remark: At the time of drafting these minutes, the finalised 2012 roster has been posted on the web site].

11.2. Division VIII representatives in other IUPAC bodies.
RMH was to continue in CCE and the PAC editorial board. ATH was interested in representing Division VIII in
ICTNS, but the rules say this must be taken care of by a titular member.
There was some discussion about the representation in JCBN. The situation is not entirely clear. Apparently Division
VIII funds two members of JCBN.
RMH was to address the incoming titular members and mention these representative positions in the other bodies.

11.3. The Division VIII Advisory Subcommittee.
RMH mentioned that retiring members of the Division VIII Committee would be invited to join the Advisory
Subcommittee.

12. Division web board (discussion board).
Bryan Pearson (BP) from the IUPAC Secretariat visited on July 29. Various practical matters in relation to the use of
the web board were brought up. Some committee members had had problems receiving alerts when there were new
postings. In some cases, this could have been due to overload on the system in the days immediately before the San
Juan meetings, in other cases recipients' firewalls could have caused the problems.
BP had worked on recovering the files from the old (now closed) RSC-hosted web board previously used by Division
VIII and its Advisory Subcommittee. Early discussions of the Blue Book 2004 draft and the 2005 Red Book should be
located there. He showed how he had attempted to group the individual files according to content. Unfortunately, the
files could not be ordered chronologically.
[Secretary's remark: One has to be careful when looking for a specific file. The files are not always classified correctly. The files
are accessible at http://media.iupac.org/divisions/VIII/rscboard. A username and a password are required.]
It was decided to postpone discussions of a number of detailed technical issues to a meeting to be held by BP, KHH
and TD following the Division Committee meeting.

13. Publicity.

13.1. Recommendations, translations and related publications.
There were no new publications since the 2010 Division Committee meeting.
BH mentioned the Portuguese translation of the carbohydrates nomenclature document and showed photos of the
cover.
KHH reported that the journal Angewandte Chemie from 2002 through 2010 had published 32 translations of IUPAC
Recommendations and Technical Reports into German. The latest translation of interest to Division VIII had already
been cited in Lund minute 7.
No German translations were currently under preparation.

It was agreed to retain the current practice of referencing translations in Division VIII minutes, cf. item 6 above.

13.2. IUPAC-IUBMB nomenclature web site.
GPM said there are around 2000 users every day, globally. Basically all countries are represented except North
Korea. There is a section on usage if one is interested in the statistics.

13.3. IUPAC web site.
This subject was briefly dealt with during the visit of BP (cf. item 12). There was no news regarding the overall
refurbishment of the IUPAC web site. Regarding the division pages, it was mentioned that updating of E-mail
addresses in the central IUPAC register and in discussion forums are not coupled and so must be cross-checked
manually by the Secretariat.
Details were postponed until the meeting KHH and TD were to have with BP after the Division VIII meeting.
9
Final minutes as appproved in Lisbon on July 2, 2012 Ture Damhus/July 16, 2012

13.4. Other publicity issues.
Nothing discussed.

14. Reports from other bodies.

14.1. Committee on Chemistry Education (CCE).
Peter Mahaffy from CCE visited Division VIII on July 29 and gave an outline of the report he was going to also
deliver to Council. He mentioned the CCE priorities for the year 2011:
(a) To maintain a primary focus on working with other partners and stakeholders to implement the International Year of
Chemistry.
(b) To foreground the importance of learner-centered chemistry curriculum and education, both in the developed and
developing world. The extent to which this is done should be one criterion used to assess educational projects.
(c) To give priority to initiatives that highlight the relationship between chemistry and sustainable development, consistent
with the goals of the IYC and the UN Decade for Education for Sustainable Development.
(d) To build chemistry education networks, using fully the multicultural competence within CCE.
(e) The biennial International Conferences on Chemistry Education are flagship activities for CCE. We continue to seek to
more fully integrate ICCE activities into the work of CCE and use ICCE conferences to report the outcomes of CCE projects
and bring participants together to implement CCE strategies.
(f) To continue to support initiatives that raise awareness and understanding of ethical issues that are important in chemistry.
He referred to the global water experiment, which was running under the IYC and currently had involved 10,000
students from 40 countries. He also mentioned the material on global climate change located on the web at
http://www.explainingclimatechange.ca/
There had been a global stamps competition, in which the winners would receive their awards in Brussels at the IYC
closing ceremony.
Other activities included the Flying Chemists program, working with chemistry curricula, Young Ambassadors for
Chemistry and the isotope table (for full details see the March/April 2011 Chemistry International issue and the
feature story at: http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/2011/3302/2_coplen.html).

RMH is the Division VIII representative in CCE, and Peter Mahaffy thanked RMH for his contributions to CCE
work. RMH said he would present the nomenclature 'Essentials' (cf. items 9.8 and 9.9.7 above) at the next ICCE. We
need to get the teachers to support the use of IUPAC nomenclature!

14.2. Committee on Printed and Electronic Publications (CPEP).
The CPEP report to Council had been posted on the web board. It was discussed briefly. We were not too sure what
the wording in section IV means. E.g., Division VIII had published the Red Book in 2005, which was now available
online. However, the contract with the publisher meant that for a while, it was only available in printed form; but that
should not be taken as reflecting a lack of commitment in Division VIII to online publication.
TD was to communicate this to CPEP.
See also item 6 above.

14.3 Committee on Chemistry and Industry (COCI).
Michael Dröscher, Chairman of COCI, visited Division VIII on July 29. His presentation highlighted key activities of
COCI, including general subjects like life cycle analysis and biofuels, the IUPAC safety training program and
working to get more IUPAC company associates (CAs). In the latter context, one could offer the argument that
IUPAC is unbiased, so it can help balance public discussion about chemistry matters. Another suggestion could be to
urge CAs to sponsor IUPAC conferences; this would provide opportunities for visibility in the community.
COCI also had an interest in Wikipedia: what is the source of and quality of information provided in the chemistry
area there? It was mentioned to Michael Dröscher that Division VIII had a new titular member coming from
Wikipedia (Nigel Wheatley).
[Secretary's remark: TD attended the meeting of COCI following the Division VIII Committee meeting. Anybody is welcome to
ask about details from there. Probably the only subject of direct interest to Division VIII was, indeed, Wikipedia.]

14.4. Pure and Applied Chemistry (PAC) editorial board.
Style of publication of IUPAC technical reports and recommendations (cf. item 6 above).
RMH was to participate in the upcoming meeting of the PAC editorial board.
10