I support Recommendation 1, including the definitions of the new scribe elements and their placement in the hierarchy.
I support Recommendation 2 in principle, including the definitions of the new wood engraver elements. However, I strongly recommend that the broader element of wood engraver agent, etc. should be printmaker agent, etc.
There are three basic types of prints: relief, intaglio, and planographic. Relief blocks are created by cutting away the non-printing areas, leaving a flat, raised image area. Relief blocks can be run through an ordinary printing press to create relief prints, or one can simply apply ink to the block and transfer the image to paper or other surface by pressing. Intaglio plates, by contrast, are created by cutting the image into the plate using an engraving tool like a burin or chemical agent like acid. The image is recessed into the plate rather than raised (as it is in a relief block). Printing an engraving from a plate requires a different type of press that is capable of applying enough pressure to squeeze the paper or other printing surface deep enough into the inked, recessed grooves to transfer the image. These are two very different processes. Engravings are a type of intaglio print. Wood engravings are a type of relief print.
The proposal and the element definitions acknowledge that wood engravings are a type of relief print. Amanda pointed out the RDA doesn't always align with external authorities, and I also believe that it's not necessary for RDA to align with all of the other sources and vocabularies that we use in our work. Technically, the current definition for engraver agent, etc. could accommodate wood engraver agent, etc. since the engraver definitions don't specify the intaglio process. However, multiple authorities confirm that engraving and wood engraving are fundamentally different, and this should be taken into consideration.
------------------------------
Jessica Grzegorski
Rare Materials Metadata Librarian
Northwestern University Libraries
She/Her/Hers
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Jun 24, 2026 09:51 PM
From: Amanda Xu
Subject: Review of RSC/TranslationsTLO/2026/2 by July 3rd
Thank you so much, Karl, for posting this proposal for comment. I find the proposal well-structured, responsive to community needs, and technically sound. The definitions are clear, the element hierarchy is logical, and the registry properties are appropriate for linked data environments. It will significantly enhance the cataloguing of rare and historical materials, support global applicability, and improve semantic precision in metadata. I would vote yes to this proposal.
I wish that there were some practical examples for each new element to aid catalogers in Official RDA Toolkit or metadata guidance documents. Libraries deciding whether to update legacy data may require additional guidance or best practices. The relationship between "wood engraver agent" and "engraver agent" may require further discussion, as external authorities do not always align with RDA's hierarchy. The proposal acknowledges this and suggests ongoing dialogue. Looking forward to continuing dialogue on broader/narrower element relationships, especially where external authorities diverge. In addition, we need to ensure that glossary definitions and registry properties are harmonized with existing RDA elements to avoid redundancy or confusion.
Best regards,
Amanda
------------------------------
Amanda Z. Xu
Team Lead, Librarian (Metadata)
National Agricultural Library
Beltsville, Maryland, USA
amanda.xu@usda.gov
------------------------------