Joseph, thanks for doing a comparison. Note that BF has about 400
properties, while RDA has nearly a thousand, so it is true that RDA is
more detailed that BF. However, RDA has virtually no class relationships
-- it's essentially a flat data space. This will have implications for
the use of RDA in actual systems, since class relationships help you do
things like "search all properties in the title class."
On 3/27/15 8:04 AM, Joseph Kiegel wrote:
> Under the influence of MARC, BIBFRAME has a large set of properties
> for identifiers while RDA is limited.
The RDA rules often allow either strings or identifiers. RDA in RDF is
essentially silent in most cases on whether the value for a property is
expected to be a string or an identifier, and therefore it can
presumably be either. This, however, is highly problematic when working
with RDF data. In general, it's never good to not know what kind of data
to expect for a field in your metadata -- it complicates input
interfaces and the programs that use the data. However, if you want to
have the possibility in your data to accommodate both strings and
identifiers, you are kind of forced to create different properties for
those different choices, which would mean nearly doubling the number of
RDA properties. Although I find the use of blank nodes in BF to be a
complicating factor, I assume that in many cases those blank nodes are
there as a way around this string-vs-identifier problem, allowing each
statement to point to a blank node that can have either or both.
To me this is evidence that we need to re-iterate back from our attempts
to create a viable RDF version of library data to the cataloging rules,
and create at least a subset of the rules that can support a viable data
format with clearly defined data values for each property. The "string
or identifier" in the rules just isn't workable in a data format.
> 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
> 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.
> Inverse Properties:
> RDA provides inverse properties (e.g. animator and animatorOf) while
> BIBFRAME lacks them.
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net