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
if requested.

BIBFRAME is richer than RDA

Administrative Metadata:
Administrative metadata (such as source, creation date, etc.) are required
in any practical carrier. BIBFRAME has properties for this and RDA lacks
them.

Identifiers:
Under the influence of MARC, BIBFRAME has a large set of properties for
identifiers while RDA is limited.

Subjects:
RDA is not yet able to express subject relationships (RDA chapters 33-37)
and BIBFRAME has a mechanism for this.

Holdings Information:
Although not fully elaborated, BIBFRAME has properties for holdings
information while RDA has almost nothing.


RDA is richer than BIBFRAME

Series:
RDA provides properties for all parts of series statements, while BIBFRAME
has a single property: series.

Notes:
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.

Inverse Properties:
RDA provides inverse properties (e.g. animator and animatorOf) while
BIBFRAME lacks them.