There exist standards for describing technical properties of resources, and BIBFRAME can be as rich as the technical standards it embraces.

-Bruce

Bruce J. Gordon
Audio Engineer
Audio Preservation Services - a shared service of the Harvard Library
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
U.S.A
tel. +1(617) 495-1241
fax +1(617) 496-4636

On Mar 27, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Joseph Kiegel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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.