A comparison of BIBFRAME and RDA/RDF (called RDA below) shows that these
schemas are relatively rich or poor in properties in different areas. This
is intended as an overview at the highest level: more detail can be given
BIBFRAME is richer than RDA
Administrative metadata (such as source, creation date, etc.) are required
in any practical carrier. BIBFRAME has properties for this and RDA lacks
Under the influence of MARC, BIBFRAME has a large set of properties for
identifiers while RDA is limited.
RDA is not yet able to express subject relationships (RDA chapters 33-37)
and BIBFRAME has a mechanism for this.
Although not fully elaborated, BIBFRAME has properties for holdings
information while RDA has almost nothing.
RDA is richer than BIBFRAME
RDA provides properties for all parts of series statements, while BIBFRAME
has a single property: series.
RDA has more properties for specific types of notes. While BIBFRAME has
note properties, the term "note" in a property name may mean simply that its
range is a literal, e.g. findingAidNote, musicMediumNote.
Technical Details of a Resource:
RDA has a large number of properties for technical details of resources such
as polarity, playingSpeed, fileSize, etc. It is not clear how BIBFRAME
handles this type of information.
RDA provides inverse properties (e.g. animator and animatorOf) while
BIBFRAME lacks them.