Core CC:DA Public Space

Please review the document at the link below and provide comments no later than Friday, March 20th.

Proposal on adding new elements, applicable to rare and old materials, to the RDA Toolkit, the corresponding new definitions to the Glossary, and the corresponding new properties to RDA Registry 

https://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/uploads/RSC_TranslationsTLO_2026_1_5.pdf

------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
------------------------------

I have mixed feelings about this proposal, having lived through presenting and discussing proposals to expand the set of relationship designators in original RDA. I believe the Translations Team Liaison Officer has made a reasonable justification, but the RSC will need to deal with this "slippery slope".  [For example, the JSC rejected "writer of recipe".] When is it appropriate for catalogers to use external lists for specialized resources rather than having those elements in RDA itself?

As to the suggested definitions, I am concerned about the use of the terms "work" and "parts" in the proposed rubricator elements. 
For example, rubricator agent: "An agent who is responsible for producing an unpublished manifestation by being responsible for parts of a work, often headings or opening parts of a manuscript, that appear in a distinctive color, usually red." [highlights mine]

These terms have a different meaning in official RDA than they do in MARC 21, and thus I think they should be avoided in these definitions. Here's a possible alternative: "An agent who is responsible for adding text in red or another distinctive color to an unpublished manifestation for emphasis." 

In reading this document, I was struck by this phrase, used in all of the book designer definitions (currently in official RDA): "... who is responsible for creating a manifestation by being responsible ...." I recommend that the RSC review this text and see if there's a way to simplify these definitions. If so, a similar solution should be applied to the new type designer definitions (if they are approved). 

Kathy

------------------------------
Kathy Glennan
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
University of Maryland Libraries
she/her/hers
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 09, 2026 05:18 PM
From: Karl Pettitt
Subject: Review of RSC/TranslationsTLO/2026/1

Please review the document at the link below and provide comments no later than Friday, March 20th.

Proposal on adding new elements, applicable to rare and old materials, to the RDA Toolkit, the corresponding new definitions to the Glossary, and the corresponding new properties to RDA Registry 

https://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/uploads/RSC_TranslationsTLO_2026_1_5.pdf

------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
------------------------------

I'm in favor of this proposal, which is probably unsurprising considering my role as RBMS Liaison. I take to heart Kathy's concerns about the "slippery slope" of relationship elements. However, RDA already includes a number of condition options for early printed resources. For that reason, I believe the specific elements in this proposal fall well within the established scope of RDA.

I agree with Kathy's revised definition for the rubricator elements and recommendation to review the existing book designer definitions relative to the type designer definitions.

------------------------------
Jessica Grzegorski
Rare Materials Metadata Librarian
Northwestern University Libraries
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 18, 2026 11:07 AM
From: Kathryn Glennan
Subject: Review of RSC/TranslationsTLO/2026/1

I have mixed feelings about this proposal, having lived through presenting and discussing proposals to expand the set of relationship designators in original RDA. I believe the Translations Team Liaison Officer has made a reasonable justification, but the RSC will need to deal with this "slippery slope".  [For example, the JSC rejected "writer of recipe".] When is it appropriate for catalogers to use external lists for specialized resources rather than having those elements in RDA itself?

As to the suggested definitions, I am concerned about the use of the terms "work" and "parts" in the proposed rubricator elements. 
For example, rubricator agent: "An agent who is responsible for producing an unpublished manifestation by being responsible for parts of a work, often headings or opening parts of a manuscript, that appear in a distinctive color, usually red." [highlights mine]

These terms have a different meaning in official RDA than they do in MARC 21, and thus I think they should be avoided in these definitions. Here's a possible alternative: "An agent who is responsible for adding text in red or another distinctive color to an unpublished manifestation for emphasis." 

In reading this document, I was struck by this phrase, used in all of the book designer definitions (currently in official RDA): "... who is responsible for creating a manifestation by being responsible ...." I recommend that the RSC review this text and see if there's a way to simplify these definitions. If so, a similar solution should be applied to the new type designer definitions (if they are approved). 

Kathy

------------------------------
Kathy Glennan
Director, Cataloging & Metadata Services
University of Maryland Libraries
she/her/hers

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 09, 2026 05:18 PM
From: Karl Pettitt
Subject: Review of RSC/TranslationsTLO/2026/1

Please review the document at the link below and provide comments no later than Friday, March 20th.

Proposal on adding new elements, applicable to rare and old materials, to the RDA Toolkit, the corresponding new definitions to the Glossary, and the corresponding new properties to RDA Registry 

https://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/uploads/RSC_TranslationsTLO_2026_1_5.pdf

------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
------------------------------

I generally support this proposal but have comments:

Compositor agent
I'm not sure about the term coherent layout in the proposed definition.  Would a compositor for a layout that is purposely incoherent be excluded? I don't think the definition would suffer if coherent was removed: "An agent who is responsible for printing a manifestation by arranging and assembling individual pieces of text, images, or other visual elements into a layout, typically for printing or digital publication."

Printer agent of plates
The proposed definition is "An agent who is responsible for creating a manifestation by printing illustrations from plates." However, plates is already defined in RDA as  a leaf of illustrative content. Perhaps printing plates or something like that could be specified instead?

Scribe agent
The proposed definition is "An agent who is responsible for producing an unpublished manifestation by making handwritten copies of manuscripts," which could be interpreted to mean someone who makes pen-facsimiles, whereas I believe the intent is to mean a person who applies ink to paper to create a manuscript. Unfortunately, I don't have a good suggestion for alternative wording!

Type designer agent
I was also struck by the double-responsible fors in this definition . Perhaps "An agent who is responsible for the design of the typeface used in the creation of a manifestation"? 

Would it be more accurate to say ""An agent who is responsible for the design of a typeface used in the creation of a manifestation"?  It's possible that a manifestation could have multiple typefaces.

Typographer agent
Perhaps "An agent who is responsible for the choice and arrangement of the type used in the creation of a manifestation"?

Woodcutter agent 
I'm curious about the reason wood engraver agent was not considered for inclusion. One cuts the plank side of a wood block and the other cute the end grain.

------------------------------
Thumy Webb
Original Cataloging Librarian
Rice University, Houston TX
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 09, 2026 05:18 PM
From: Karl Pettitt
Subject: Review of RSC/TranslationsTLO/2026/1

Please review the document at the link below and provide comments no later than Friday, March 20th.

Proposal on adding new elements, applicable to rare and old materials, to the RDA Toolkit, the corresponding new definitions to the Glossary, and the corresponding new properties to RDA Registry 

https://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/uploads/RSC_TranslationsTLO_2026_1_5.pdf

------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
------------------------------

I agree with the other comments. I generally support this proposal but I agree that some definitions could be phrased better.  I especially feel that the redundant "responsible for" language in book designer agent and proposed narrower terms needs to be reviewed.

------------------------------
Shelby Anderson
Manager, Catalog Management Unit
Yale University
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: Mar 09, 2026 05:18 PM
From: Karl Pettitt
Subject: Review of RSC/TranslationsTLO/2026/1

Please review the document at the link below and provide comments no later than Friday, March 20th.

Proposal on adding new elements, applicable to rare and old materials, to the RDA Toolkit, the corresponding new definitions to the Glossary, and the corresponding new properties to RDA Registry 

https://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/uploads/RSC_TranslationsTLO_2026_1_5.pdf

------------------------------
Karl Pettitt
Coordinator of Cataloging and Metadata Services
University of Denver Libraries
------------------------------