From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Could be a good idea to merge Abox and Tbox articles. universimmedia 07:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I agree. highlunder 12:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but the example "All students are subclasses of Persons" does not seem to make sense: students certainly ARE not classes, the set of students might FORM a class. Similarly, subclasses are not likely to be of Persons but of the class formed by Persons. In some contexts it might not be necessary to point out these details, but in an illustrating example like here, I think it is.

So why not change the example to something like either: "Students are Persons" which describes the assertion as a statement about the individuals of the involved classes or "the class of Students is a subclass of the class of Persons" which explicitly describes the class relationship.

I am also in favor of mergin the TBOX and ABOX articles and maybe also mention RBOX. Johann Petrak 15:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I made the change to "All Students are Persons" but don't have time to merge the articles. China Crisis 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

the letters[edit]

Do "T" and "A" stand for anything? "T" might be "type" maybe? Jar354 (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"TBox" = Terminology Box

"ABox" = Assertional Box

Possible references[edit]

The Assertion Box (ABox)/Terminology Box (TBox) distinction is made in Description Logics [1,2]. However, KL-ONE already distinguished between these concepts: "In a sense, KL-ONE was beginning to divide into two different formalisms --- one for assertion and one for description. These two parts would serve to represent the beliefs of the system and the terms out of which the belief sentences would be constructed, respectively." [3]

[1] F. Baader, D. Calvanese, D. L. McGuinness, D. Nardi, and P. F. Patel-Schneider, editors. The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2nd edition, August 2007. ISBN 0-521-78176-0.

[2] F. Baader, I. Horrocks, and U. Sattler. Description logics. In F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, and B. Porter, editors, Handbook of Knowledge Representations, chapter 3, pages 135–179. Elsevier, 2008.

[3] R. J. Brachman and J. G. Schmolze. An overview of the KL-ONE knowledge representation system. Cognitive Science, 9(2):171–216, 1985.

Jochemliem (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)