Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
The Ontology of Tags
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

The Ontology of Tags

482

Published on

A presentation given during iConference 2010 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, …

A presentation given during iConference 2010 at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
Feb. 3-6. A critical look at the nature of tags as collaborative, their social and cultural dimensions, the tri-concept relationship from which semantic emerges, and some descriptions of the ontological nature of tags and implications for future tagging analysis and understanding.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
482
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture (conceptual associations) of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point. This, in my opinion, makes tags and tagging systems very powerful--the ability to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from multiple starting points.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer. The issue of polysemy, in other words, cannot be sorted out through manipulation of the tags themselves.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS (or a picture of it on Flickr) as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, to overcome the difficulties of polysemy, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture (conceptual associations) of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point. This, in my opinion, makes tags and tagging systems very powerful--the ability to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from multiple starting points.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer. The issue of polysemy, in other words, cannot be sorted out through manipulation of the tags themselves.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS (or a picture of it on Flickr) as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, to overcome the difficulties of polysemy, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture (conceptual associations) of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point. This, in my opinion, makes tags and tagging systems very powerful--the ability to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from multiple starting points.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer. The issue of polysemy, in other words, cannot be sorted out through manipulation of the tags themselves.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS (or a picture of it on Flickr) as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, to overcome the difficulties of polysemy, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • Folksonomies: collective tags that arise from many users tagging a resource on the web; they are often portrayed as tagclouds, which account for the frequencies of each tag in relation to the resource object, and which are known as broad folksonomies (del.icio.us); there are also narrow folksonomies where tag frequencies are irrelevant (Flickr)
    Personalized semantics: Tags reflect the personalized semantic connections that people use to classify a particular entity, resource or phenomenon. They are used to facilitate recall of information that don’t require the learning of a taxonomy--a hierarchical classification structure devised by an expert.
    Non-hierarchical: tags are aggregated into tag sets, but don’t have a hierarchical structure as do formal classification systems like taxonomies. Rather, they reflect the connectionist architecture of our cognition and allow us to evoke our ontological conceptualizations from any starting point.
    Shared vocabularies: because we live as cultural beings, we share intrapersonal schemas, and as language is a primary form of communication for us, we co-create a shared vocabulary that allows us to access our shared schemas. This sharedness of tags makes them a dimension of the cultural.
    Tags form the entry points into the complex cognitive networks of schemas. These networks of schemas are the ontological conceptualizations we hold as part of our being, they lend meaning to our experience and facilitate understanding, which is the basic way of being for Dasein.
    It’s important for us to understand, however, that although we might share the same lexicon, we don’t necessarily share the same semantics associated with that lexicon. My use of the tag “ontology” as a philosopher would entail a different conceptualization than a computer scientist using the same tag, for example. Or the use of “class” by an ontologist is completely different than that of a teacher or that of a java programmer.
    Moreover, we might employ different cultural identities in tagging an entity or phenomenon and use seemingly contradictory tags for it. Two hunters might tag a geographic area within a GIS as “exciting” or “challenging,” but one of those hunters using his identity as a father might also tag it “dangerous” or “to_avoid” to make it clear that it is not a place he’d want his children to go.
    In order to properly interpret the semantics of a tag, we need to understand the perspective from which it is offered, i.e., the cultural identity and associated schemas of the person creating it.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • What is culture?
    Culture, as we said, is an emergent phenomenon, arising from the interplay of intrapersonal schemas and extrapersonal structures.
    As Dasien we have these ready-to-hand ontological conceptualizations that exist as integrated networks of cognitive schemas.
    They derive from regularly patterned experiences in the world in which we are continually immersed and help us to make meaning of it. These patterns are shaped by our cultural experiences--as parts of nations, societies, organizations, families, and other identities we adopt as part of our shared experiential contexts. Taken together, our cognitive and cultural schemas are said to be intrapersonal.
    These patterns of schemas help to focus our attention during experience. As we encounter extrapersonal structures within the world, our intrapersonal schemas make salient different dimensions of the entity or phenomenon. We see the phenomenon as having particular structural and content qualities. These qualities are not completely separate from the entity or phenomenon, but they are the ones we’ve learned to pay attention to in order to understand and make meaning of it. These are the extrapersonal structures of the world.
    It is in this interplay that culture emerges. Culture doesn’t exist solely as intrapersonal schemas nor as extrapersonal structures, rather as the emergent and experiential interaction of the two.
    So where do tags fit in this model? Tags exist as extrapersonal structures that evoke intrapersonal schemas, like content and structure, and connect us with the entity or phenonmenon in an experiential context. Tags create an entry point into and activate the complex ontological conceptualizations we hold as schemas. Tags are signs--they are ontic, the everyday and instantiated representations that serve as indicators to the ontological.
  • Transcript

    • 1. The Ontology of Tags David J. Saab College of Information Sciences and Technology The Pennsylvania State University dsaab@ist.psu.edu iConference 2010 University of Illinois,Champaign-Urbana February 3-6
    • 2. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 3. Tags & Tagging • Is it really “collaborative”? • What is their cultural nature? • Semiotics...or semantics? • ...the ontology of... iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 4. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 5. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 6. Being cognition conceptualization •Personal cultural cultural schemas culture emergence •Conceptual environment experience folksonomies formal ontology •Non-hierarchical globalization granularity Heidegger identity indigenous •Vocabularies information interoperability IST knowledge language metaphor narrative networks ontologies •Shared ontology perception phenomenology philosophy •Stable schemas sdi semantic web semantic networks semantics sharing •Power Laws social network spatial structure tagclouds tagging tags •“Collaborative” taxonomies technology TEDTalks thesis truth understanding values visualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 7. Being cognition conceptualization •Personal cultural cultural schemas culture emergence •Conceptual environment experience folksonomies formal ontology •Non-hierarchical globalization granularity Heidegger identity indigenous •Vocabularies information interoperability IST knowledge language metaphor narrative networks ontologies •Shared ontology perception phenomenology philosophy •Stable schemas sdi semantic web semantic networks semantics sharing •Power Laws social network spatial structure tagclouds tagging tags •“Collaborative” taxonomies technology TEDTalks thesis truth understanding values visualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 8. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 9. Lambiotte & Ausloos 2005 Kipp & Campbell 2006 Santos-Neto, Ripeanu & Iamnitchi 2007 Schmitz 2006 “collaborative” Jäschke, et al. 2007 Choi & Lui 2006 Capocci & Caldarelli 2007 Cattuto, Loreto & Pietronero 2004, 2007 iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 10. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 11. Personal use, personal vocabulary iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 12. Personal use, Social environment personal vocabulary iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 13. Personal use, personal vocabulary Personal becomes shared Social environment iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 14. Personal use, personal vocabulary Social environment Personal“collaborative”? But is it becomes shared iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 15. Personal use, personal vocabulary Social environment Personal becomes shared But is it “collaborative”? iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 16. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 17. Collaborative implies… ...working together with a shared understanding towards some goal—that there is active, focused, and agreed upon intent and supporting structure among a group of persons to achieve a specific goal or set of goals. (Wood & Gray 1991; Hvienden 1994, Saab et al. 2008) iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 18. Collaborative implies… ...working together with a shared understanding towards some goal—that there is active, focused, and agreed upon intent and supporting structure among a group of persons to achieve a specific goal or set of goals. (Wood & Gray 1991; Hvienden 1994, Saab et al. 2008) ...a single culture iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 19. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 20. Collective Collaborative Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 21. Collective Collaborative Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 22. Collective Collaborative Social Cultural Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 23. Collective Collaborative Social Cultural Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 24. Collective Collaborative Social Cultural Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 25. Collaborative Cultural Shared Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 26. Cultural iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 27. • Emergent • Intrapersonal schemas • Extrapersonal structures Cultural • Semantic • Shared ontologies • Multiple cultural identities & perspectives iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 28. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 29. Emergent Culture Model iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 30. Emergent Culture Model Schemas iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 31. Emergent Culture Model Schemas Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions National Culture Culture iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 32. Emergent Culture Model Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Phenomenon n t Conte iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 33. Emergent Culture Model Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 34. Emergent Culture Model Culture Emergence Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 35. Emergent Culture Model Culture Emergence Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 36. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 37. • Ontic • Semiotic • User-Resource-Tag • Convenient for data Social mining (Hotho et al. 2006) •Semantic? • Lexical, not conceptual • Dominant cultural group iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 38. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 39. user Semiotic resource iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 40. user Semiotic resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 41. user Semiotic resource tag (signified) (signifier) iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 42. user Tri-Concept semantics Relationship resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 43. user Tri-Concept semantics semantics Relationship resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 44. user Tri-Concept semantics semantics Relationship resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 45. user semantics Cultural resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 46. all users Social No shared resource conceptualizationall tags iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 47. Culture Emergence Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 48. Social Approach Culture Emergence Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 49. Social Approach Struc ture Entity Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 50. Struc ture Entity Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 51. Semanticity requires... Culture Emergence Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 52. Semanticity requires... Culture Emergence Schemas Semantics Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 53. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 54. Interacting Cultural Identities iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 55. University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana Interacting Cultural Identities National National National Culture Culture Culture Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Organizational Organizational Organizational Culture Culture Culture Culture Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions ll l naaa e on n rer NN Naaa a iioio uree nsss DD CC tt ti D C att t l u u on n iimm uuul iiooon m ulltt t ona a Naaa utt ioi NN ulutlt ssisoo i n eeen uuur all l en urr CC een n C e n nsss e e m sii i e imm Di i DD D Personality Traits Personality Traits Personality Traits onnn oons s s lll l naa nnna OO O rrg g r to ttiioio gaaa a zzaaa ree nsss z e DD CC ninzz D C ni i ni l utr r oo nini ttuu iionnn D iimm ulul zzatat m ultttt atii i i gaaa l l s i rrg g Cuu ensss r u nn en n urr r on n ee uu oo OO CCmeee OO ns s eee na a sii i e all l imm on n oo Di i DD ns s s ittsss aaiai t PPe Pe err r Trr TTTr ssso so on n yyy n lliitlttt i alal al naaa on n iittyty i iy so o rrsrs TTTr Trr aiai ai Pee PPe ttsts s Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags SSt Stt ntt nnt rruu rr uccc te ttee t cttt Structure Structure Structureon onn Coo uur urr Content Content Content The Ontology of Tags CC ee e Se SSee SSee Se emm m m mm aan annn aaa nntt nt ttitcc icc i iccc ii Structure Structure Structure Ta TTa TTaa Ta Content Content Content agg gss ggss gs s eee CC Coo urr uurr on onn cttt ucc PP P ttee t enn rruu rr h n hh nn n nttt Personality Traits Personality Traits Personality Traits Phenomenon Phenomenon Stt SSt Phenomenon Phenomenon neoo eo e Organizational Organizational Organizational S Personality Traits Personality Traits Personality Traits eennoo en nno Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions E y Organizational Organizational Organizational EEnyy Phenomenon Phenomenon Phenomenon National National National P PP Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions nnn Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions mmm Culture Culture Culture Culture Culture Culture t Entity Entity ttititittttitiii m oom m Entity hhee Entity oon he Entity onn Entity noEEn National National National National ee y en Culture Culture Culture nn EEn ttyy eeno E Culture Culture Culture n Enn ty enn enn nntt ttitttyy nno Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags tiititt i it hee Entity oon E om oom Ph Entity nn PPh Entity m m enn nom m m Enn EEyyny Phenomenon Phenomenone o een nno Phenomenon Phenomenon ee eoe oo Stt SSt PPh nn Phh n nttt eeen n rruu r u cc ctt t nttt Structure Structure Structure oon on u uu Content Content Content CC C rree r e s gss gsss agg g agg TTa Ta T TTa Ta ic iicic c iicic ntt t ntt t Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags ann aan ann aa emmm emm m SSe Se eee C CC SSe Se Content Content Content Structure Structure Structure uurr ur on oon ntt t ccttt c ee enn rruu ru ntt t SStt St s itttts ss aiii Pe PPe err r raaa Trr TTTr ss so o y on n iyyy litittt i n al alal aalll nnaa iittyty iy oonn soo TT Trr r rsss eerrr ai aiai PPee PP ttsts s ss nnss D DD onn iooo iimm i siii e aallll m nsss reee nnaa eeen tuuurr tiooon enn tttur iiion O OO CC e e rrg g Cu u ens s ga a u nn r imm uulll aaatt iim l at im an llttlt siioio n o DD CCuunnnizz D C nziz D C ii inzz urrere ns s izi uue nn s a at atat ggga aa rrrrg iioio on n na a OO OO all l ss nnss D DD onn iooo Personality Traits Personality Traits Personality Traits iimm i siii e m nsss reee l eeen tuuurr aaall enn tttur al C ee CC en n n imm uulll nnn iim l im n N ult sioi NN ulutlt sisoo DD CCuu aittooo D C t itiio D C at u n atat u u n n iioio rrere s s on n e s aaa na a NN NN all l Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Culture Culture Culture Organizational Organizational Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Culture Culture Culture National National National iConference 2010, Feb 3-6
    • 56. University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana Interacting Cultural Identities National National National Culture Culture Culture Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Organizational Organizational Organizational Culture Culture Culture Culture Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions ll l naaa e on n rer NN Naaa a iioio uree nsss DD CC tt ti D C att t l u u on n iimm uuul iiooon m ulltt t ona a Naaa utt ioi NN ulutlt ssisoo i n eeen uuur all l en urr CC een n C e n nsss e e m sii i e imm Di i DD D Personality Traits Personality Traits Personality Traits onnn oons s s lll l naa nnna OO O rrg g r to ttiioio gaaa a zzaaa ree nsss z e DD CC ninzz D C ni i ni l utr r oo nini ttuu iionnn D iimm ulul zzatat m ultttt atii i i gaaa l l s i rrg g Cuu ensss r u nn en n urr r on n ee uu oo OO CCmeee OO ns s eee na a sii i e all l imm on n oo Di i DD ns s s ittsss aaiai t PPe Pe err r Trr TTTr ssso so on n yyy n lliitlttt i alal al naaa on n iittyty i iy so o rrsrs TTTr Trr aiai ai Pee PPe ttsts s Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags SSt Stt ntt nnt rruu rr uccc te ttee t cttt Structure Structure Structureon onn Coo uur urr Content Content Content The Ontology of Tags CC ee e Se SSee SSee Se emm m m mm aan annn aaa nntt nt ttitcc icc i iccc ii Structure Structure Structure Ta TTa TTaa Ta Content Content Content agg gss ggss gs s eee CC Coo urr uurr on onn cttt ucc PP P ttee t enn rruu rr h n hh nn n nttt Personality Traits Personality Traits Personality Traits Phenomenon Phenomenon Stt SSt Phenomenon Phenomenon neoo eo e Organizational Organizational Organizational S Personality Traits Personality Traits Personality Traits eennoo en nno Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions E y Organizational Organizational Organizational EEnyy Phenomenon Phenomenon Phenomenon National National National P PP Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions nnn Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions mmm Culture Culture Culture Culture Culture Culture t Entity Entity ttititittttitiii m oom m Entity hhee Entity oon he Entity onn Entity noEEn National National National National ee y en Culture Culture Culture nn EEn ttyy eeno E Culture Culture Culture n Enn ty enn enn nntt ttitttyy nno Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags tiititt i it hee Entity oon E om oom Ph Entity nn PPh Entity m m enn nom m m Enn EEyyny Phenomenon Phenomenone o een nno Phenomenon Phenomenon ee eoe oo Stt SSt PPh nn Phh n nttt eeen n rruu r u cc ctt t nttt Structure Structure Structure oon on u uu Content Content Content CC C rree r e s gss gsss agg g agg TTa Ta T TTa Ta ic iicic c iicic ntt t ntt t Semantic Tags Semantic Tags Semantic Tags ann aan ann aa emmm emm m SSe Se eee C CC SSe Se Content Content Content Structure Structure Structure uurr ur on oon ntt t ccttt c ee enn rruu ru ntt t SStt St s itttts ss aiii Pe PPe err r raaa Trr TTTr ss so o y on n iyyy litittt i n al alal aalll nnaa iittyty iy oonn soo TT Trr r rsss eerrr ai aiai PPee PP ttsts s ss nnss D DD onn iooo iimm i siii e aallll m nsss reee nnaa eeen tuuurr tiooon enn tttur iiion O OO CC e e rrg g Cu u ens s ga a u nn r imm uulll aaatt iim l at im an llttlt siioio n o DD CCuunnnizz D C nziz D C ii inzz urrere ns s izi uue nn s a at atat ggga aa rrrrg iioio on n na a OO OO all l ss nnss D DD onn iooo Personality Traits Personality Traits Personality Traits iimm i siii e m nsss reee l eeen tuuurr aaall enn tttur al C ee CC en n n imm uulll nnn iim l im n N ult sioi NN ulutlt sisoo DD CCuu aittooo D C t itiio D C at u n atat u u n n iioio rrere s s on n e s aaa na a NN NN all l Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Culture Culture Culture Organizational Organizational Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Dimensions Culture Culture Culture National National National iConference 2010, Feb 3-6
    • 57. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 58. An interpretation that does not match exactly the intent is not a failure of communication, rather "an illusion of the code theory that communication aims at the duplication of meanings" (Staab et al. 2002) iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 59. An interpretation that does not match exactly the intent is not a failure of communication, rather "an illusion of the code theory that communication aims at the duplication of meanings" (Staab et al. 2002) • Hermeneutic... • Interaction • Construction • Communication iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 60. An interpretation that does not match exactly the intent is not a failure of communication, rather "an illusion of the code theory that communication aims at the duplication of meanings" (Staab et al. 2002) • Hermeneutic... • Cultural • Interaction • Not social, per se • Construction • Contextual intent • Communication iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 61. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 62. ...words... “Meaning-structure is latent in experience… words point to something beyond themselves as translucent bearers of meaning…” (Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology, 1977) iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 63. ...words... “Meaning-structure is latent in experience… words point to something beyond themselves as translucent bearers of meaning…” (Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology, 1977) • Ontic signs • Ontological “clues” ...indicators of underlying ontological conceptualizations iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 64. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 65. Entry points Signs Indicators “Being-a-sign-for can be formalized as a universal kind of relation, so that the sign- structure itself provides the ontological clue for ‘characterizing’ any entity ‘whatsoever.’” Heidegger, Being and Time, p. 107-108; H. 77 iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 66. Culture Emergence Schemas Semantics Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 67. ...entry points... Schemas Semantic Tags iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 68. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 69. The Ontology of Tags •Created to facilitate •Present-at-hand items of personal recall ‘equipment’ for showing or indicating •Indicate where one’s concern dwells based on •Ready-to-hand evokers personal historical and of cognitive and cultural cultural understanding schemas •Ontic entry points into •Readiness-to-hand complex ontological provides ‘interactive conceptualizations space’ for discerning semantics iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 70. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 71. Implications... • Social tagging is collective, • Semantic analysis requires not collaborative extrapersonal lexical structure and the • Power laws reflect shared intrapersonal schema evoked vocabulary (Social) • Must not mistake the ontic • Stability reinforced by shared for the ontological conceptualizations of a dominant culture (Cultural) • Tagging systems need hermeneutic mechanisms for • Semantics of tags dependent interaction, construction, and upon cultural identity communication to allow semantics to emerge iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    • 72. Thanks for listening! Questions? Comments? Feedback? Crazy Ideas? www.djsaab.info iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

    ×