The adoption of a standard like the AIF will likely lead to both increased availability and quality of adsorption data, but on its own will not necessarily address the general challenge encountered in this work which concerns establishing links between related but independently maintained data sources, such as the CSD and the NIST-ISODB, as one can envision that similar arguments hold for matching of the structure with an IR, NMR, or XPS spectrum, and the oxidation state, or the color of the crystal. Importantly, the need for matching of entries in different databases could be avoided by providing metadata using unique resource identifiers (URIs), such as the ORCID for the author of an entry, or the link to a structure in the CSD, and when the MOF is not reported in the CSD there exist technologies to uniquely identify structures. Additionally, open research data repositories such as Zenodo, the Open Science Framework 84 or the NIST-ISODB allow to publish data under a persistent identifier such as a DOI. If these recommendations were adopted for all chemical measurements, a part of this article would not have been written, as the matching between the identity of MOFs, their crystal structure It is not the aim of this work to advocate for one standard or another, but we do advocate for the need for data interoperability conventions that are accepted by the community, and are a condition for publication. Only then we can avoid that similar articles, focusing on the mining of a certain property of interest, need to appear, as extensive querying would become an easy operation for computational and experimental researchers.