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 

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.

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.