Maybe you can think of the schematic view as more of a functional block diagram, while the breadboard (and pcb) view are more of the implementation details. Same pieces, different perspective.
Data sheets can hold a lot of low level details. The trick is to filter, to get to the pieces that are currently of interest. It is all important depending on the context, but a lot can be ignored if you are not approaching the boundary conditions (min/max temperature, voltage, pin load current, timing limits, …). Most hobby projects are safely ‘middle of the road’, with wide margins. When that becomes not true, the datasheet will show where the walls (and cliffs) are going to be.
The image you show is a carrier board to allow an smd version of the part to be used on a breadboard. I did not check pins, but probably makes it a plug in replacement for the dip package.
Remember that the people that created the Fritzing parts have different needs and perspectives. I would not have bothered creating the breadboard view like that. If it is really a drop in replacement for a dip package. I would have used the standard dip package in the breadboard view, but with the SMD footprint for the pcb view. So prototyping on the breadboard could use the dip package, or smd on a carrier, and the final project pcb board could use the smd package.
Just my perspective. I can’t add “engineer” to my credentials, but I have a computer science / software programming background, plus working with electronics going back 50 years.