Markman, A.B. (1999) Knowledge Representation. Mahwah, N.J: LEA

As you may already know both of those concepts have their foundation in work on artificial intelligence, principally in the development of data structures  to represent "knowledge" in expert systems. You might, as an introduction take a look at a somewhat dated book by Margaret Boden "Artificial Intelligence and Natural Man" (1987), or for frames go directly to the horses mouth an look at  Minsky's article, "The Society Theory of Thinking," published in Artificial Intelligence: An MIT Perspective, (1979).

Both terms stem from artificial intelligence, as Frederick Keller pointed out, but both terms are not used very often anymore. The term scripts is typically used to refer to some standard procedure to do relatively standard actions. The prototypical example is the "restaurant-script" that allows you to behave appropriately in a restaurant without really thinking about it. In AI schemas haven't proven particularly useful, but you still encounter the term in cognitive psychology, where it roughly refers to the same idea: we have knowledge in memory on how to do certain things.

Although "scripts" is a rather general category of representation, Frames are much more concrete, and if you pick up an old enough AI book you will find examples of how frames are used. In general, they are a knowledge representation in which knowledge is stored in units that consist of slots with certain values in them, including particular default values. For example, a frame may contain knowledge about birds with slots containing knowledge on what they eat, how they procreate, etc. The bird-frame can inherit knowledge from animals in general.

However, frames fell into disuse, and contrary to scripts Cognitive Psychology hasn't picked up the term.

Both terms stem from artificial intelligence and cognitive psychology. see :

Minsky (M.). —  A framework for representing knowledge, in P. H. Winston, (edit.), The psychology of computer vision, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Rumelhart (D.). — Notes on a schema for stories, in D. Bobrow & A. Collins (édit.), Représentation and Understanding, New York, Academic Press, 1975.

Rumelhart (D.). — Understanding and summarizing brief stories, in D. Laberge & J. Samuels (edit.), Basic processes in reading : Perception and comprehension, Hillsdale (nj), Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977.

Schänk (R. C), Abelson (R.). — - Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding, Hillsdale

(nj), Lawrence Erlbaum,

1977.

The relevance of these terms in the field of AI notwithstanding I would additionally look at Erving Goffman's "Frame Analysis" (1974), who builds on a notion of frame that was originally coined by Gregory Bateson in his "Theory of Play and Fantasy" (1955) (see his "Steps to an Ecology of Mind", 1972, pp. 177-193).

In this view (which might be combined with the AI term) frames are activated collectively in situations. Besides, a schema is a form of categorization that guides any perception while a script is a schema that is additionally connected to some expected course of action to be performed.

However, the latter terms both are forms of coupling between individual perception and communication (see e.g. Paul DiMaggio, 1997, Culture and Cognition, in: Annual Review of Sociology 23, S. 263- 287 and Karen Cerulo, 2010, Mining the Intersections of Cognitive Sociology and Neuroscience. Poetics 38: 115-132.) That is, if you simply leave frames, schemata, and scripts inside the head or inside some machine then much of their potential might get lost.

Thank you for all the suggestions you have provided so far - really helpful! I think the concepts do not have their origins in IT, but stem from early works of (cognitive) Psychologists such as Bartlett (1932) and also Piaget. I was not fully aware of the widespread adoption of the concepts by AI people, so thank you for that hint. While, indeed, cognitive psychologists may have lost interest in the concepts in the more recent past, scholars of organizational cognition have brought them back into the debate, e.g.:

* Bingham, C. B., & Kahl, S. J. 2013. The process of schema emergence: Assimilation, deconstruction, unitization and the plurality of analogies. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1): 14–34.

* Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. 2011. Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3): 577–610.

* Werner, M. D., & Cornelissen, J. P. 2014. Framing the change: Switching and blending frames and their role in instigating institutional change. Organization Studies, 35(10): 1449–1472.

I think that cognitive research moved away from these terms sometime during the 80s, but recent discoveries in neuroscience have put them back in the center. Specifically, findings in rodents from the Morris lab (Science 2007 & 2011; added a link to the more recent paper)  show that previous knowledge - schema, in their terms - facilitates a rapid assimilation of new information. These papers have spawned several lines of research - you can look for papers by Marlieke van Kesteren from the Guillen Fernandez group, some of the work done by Alison Preston, some of the works in our group (Anat Maril's group), and others.

About a good review of all terms - I find the Alba & Hasher 1983 paper in Psychological Bulletin helpful.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6044/891.short

I think, in short, schema is a certain way of representing a common phenomenen like BLOCKAGE, CONTAINMENT etc. and frame is a theoretical construct on which different schemas come into play. For example, a classroom is a frame because it has it's own meaning world like the way of talking, the direction of teaching process etc.