From: "Mike Taylor" <[log in to unmask]>
> The second, and more problematic, redundancy issue, is where you've
> introduced a new index which is semantically very close to, or in some
> cases seemingly indistinguishable from, an existing one.  The obvious
> example is gils.title which seems identical -- or at least very, very
> close -- to dc.title.
>
> But, hey, you didn't want to talk about that!  It remains a key issue,
> but we'll do it in a separate thread as you requested.
>

Ok,  a separate thread

gils.title:  The name of the information resource.

dc.title: The name given to the resource

Leaving aside the "given to" as opposed to "of"  it seems to me that the
difference between "resource" and "information resource" is sufficient to
merit different indexes. In the dc defintion a resource can be a physical
object.

Mike, it seems that you're suggesting that GILS  should modify its
definition to fit DC?  I  certainly wouldn't support such a suggestion.


--Ray