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


Bruce J. Gordon
Audio Engineer
Audio Preservation Services - a shared service of the Harvard Library
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
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.

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.