> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> On Behalf Of Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress
> 
> gils.title:  The name of the information resource.
> 
> dc.title: The name given to the resource

So, Ray, you think that GILS is promising that the resources are always
electronic and that merits the distinction.  I'm going to disagree for
two reasons.

First, there is no guarantee that the resources will always be
electronic.  Someone, somewhere (maybe me) will stick in a pointer to a
non-electronic resource.  In the absence of a guarantee, the distinction
is moot.

The other reason is that in the context of a database of all electronic
resources, the titles found will always be electronic.  So, again, the
distinction is moot.

The only way that gils.title becomes meaningful is in a database of
mixed electronic and non-electronic items where BOTH dc.title and
gils.title are supported and gils.title retrieves a subset of the things
retrieved by dc.title.  And if there were such a database, I'd still say
use dc.title and add a new gualifier that restricted the records to only
electronic items.

Ralph