Tbox Vs Abox vs MBox

"when writing an ontology you are often mostly defining classes and properties that you expect to reuse in lots of different sets of instance data. Thus the ontology is often mostly t-box assertions and you can think of the different instance datasets as a-boxes which will be coupled to the t-box (either explicitly with owl:imports or implicitly in your processing system). However, it is pretty common, and perfectly reasonable, for such ontologies to have a few individuals present (e.g. as symbolic labels) and so not be "pure" t-boxes."
" you will /never/ find axioms that are soley TBox axiom in RDFS, since there will always be the additional RDF-inherited semantics for all the RDF triples that encode the axiom."
"in contrast to OWL DL, in OWL Full you also never have a clear separation between the ABox and the TBox."
"In OWL DL, classes are sets, while in RDFS a class is an individual with an associated set, the so called "class extension" of the individual."

Model Box (MBox)

MBox "not as standardized or widely used as the TBox and ABox"
The MBox can be understood as a component that deals with the instances of models or theories defined in the TBox. It’s not about specific real-world instances (like the ABox), but rather about instances of the models or theories themselves.
It might involve scenarios, simulations, or hypothetical instances that are derived from the TBox but are not necessarily concrete or real-world facts like those in the ABox. The MBox can be used for testing hypotheses, running simulations, or exploring theoretical scenarios within the framework defined by the TBox.
In some interpretations, the MBox might also deal with meta-modeling or the representation of models about models. This can be important in more complex or layered semantic systems where you have models that are built on top of other models.

Backlinks

Model Box (MBox)