 |
 |
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.