The Ontology of Tags
 David J. Saab
 College of Information Sciences and Technology
 The Pennsylvania State University
 ds...
iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Tags & Tagging
• Is it really “collaborative”?

• What is their cultural nature?

• Semiotics...or semantics?

• ...the on...
iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Being cognition conceptualization
                                                           •Personal
      cultural cult...
Being cognition conceptualization
                                                           •Personal
      cultural cult...
iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Lambiotte & Ausloos 2005


        Kipp & Campbell 2006


                                 Santos-Neto, Ripeanu & Iamnitch...
iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Personal use,
            personal vocabulary




iConference 2010, Feb 3-6     The Ontology of Tags   University of Illin...
Personal use,
            Social environment
            personal vocabulary




iConference 2010, Feb 3-6     The Ontolog...
Personal use,
            personal vocabulary

     Personal becomes shared
        Social environment




iConference 201...
Personal use,
            personal vocabulary

             Social environment


     Personal“collaborative”?
     But is...
Personal use,
            personal vocabulary

             Social environment


     Personal becomes shared


     But i...
iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Collaborative implies…

  ...working together with a
  shared understanding
  towards some goal—that
  there is active, fo...
Collaborative implies…

  ...working together with a
  shared understanding
  towards some goal—that
  there is active, fo...
iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Collective                      Collaborative




                        Shared                      Shared
             ...
Collective                      Collaborative




                        Shared                      Shared
             ...
Collective                      Collaborative


                       Social                               Cultural
     ...
Collective                      Collaborative


                       Social                               Cultural
     ...
Collective                      Collaborative


                       Social                               Cultural
     ...
Collaborative


                                                   Cultural
                                           Sha...
Cultural



iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
• Emergent
                                          • Intrapersonal schemas
                                          • E...
iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Emergent Culture Model




iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Emergent Culture Model


                              Schemas




iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   Univ...
Emergent Culture Model


                                                                    Schemas

                    ...
Emergent Culture Model


                                                                    Schemas


                   ...
Emergent Culture Model


                                                                                           Schema...
Emergent Culture Model
                                                                                                   ...
Emergent Culture Model
                                                                                                   ...
iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
• Ontic
                                      • Semiotic
                                          • User-Resource-Tag
   ...
iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
user




          Semiotic
                            resource




iConference 2010, Feb 3-6      The Ontology of Tags  ...
user




          Semiotic
                            resource                                          tag




iConfere...
user




          Semiotic
                             resource                                          tag
           ...
user



        Tri-Concept                semantics


        Relationship

                            resource         ...
user



        Tri-Concept                semantics                      semantics


        Relationship

              ...
user



        Tri-Concept                semantics                      semantics


        Relationship

              ...
user


                                                                  semantics

            Cultural

                ...
all users




                 Social
                                        No shared
                            resour...
Culture
                                                                                                     Emergence



...
Social Approach
                                                                                                      Cult...
Social Approach


                                                   Struc
                                               ...
Struc
                                                        ture

                                                      ...
Semanticity requires...
                                                                                                  ...
Semanticity requires...
                                                                                                  ...
iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Interacting Cultural Identities




iConference 2010, Feb 3-6   The Ontology of Tags   University of Illinois, Champaign-U...
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
×

The Ontology of Tags

639 views
576 views

Published on

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
639
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
32
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

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.
  • The Ontology of Tags

    1. 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. 2. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    3. 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. 4. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    5. 5. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    6. 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. 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. 8. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    9. 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. 10. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    11. 11. Personal use, personal vocabulary iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    12. 12. Personal use, Social environment personal vocabulary iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    13. 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. 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. 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. 16. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    17. 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. 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. 19. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    20. 20. Collective Collaborative Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    21. 21. Collective Collaborative Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    22. 22. Collective Collaborative Social Cultural Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    23. 23. Collective Collaborative Social Cultural Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    24. 24. Collective Collaborative Social Cultural Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    25. 25. Collaborative Cultural Shared Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    26. 26. Cultural iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    27. 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. 28. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    29. 29. Emergent Culture Model iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    30. 30. Emergent Culture Model Schemas iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    31. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 36. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    37. 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. 38. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    39. 39. user Semiotic resource iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    40. 40. user Semiotic resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    41. 41. user Semiotic resource tag (signified) (signifier) iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    42. 42. user Tri-Concept semantics Relationship resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    43. 43. user Tri-Concept semantics semantics Relationship resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    44. 44. user Tri-Concept semantics semantics Relationship resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    45. 45. user semantics Cultural resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    46. 46. all users Social No shared resource conceptualizationall tags iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    47. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 53. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
    54. 54. Interacting Cultural Identities iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

    ×