Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to The Ontology of Tags
Similar to The Ontology of Tags (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The Ontology of Tags
- 1. The Ontology of Tags David J. Saab College of Information Sciences and Technology The Pennsylvania State University dsaab@ist.psu.edu iConference 2010 University of Illinois,Champaign-Urbana February 3-6
- 2. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 3. Tags & Tagging • Is it really “collaborative”? • What is their cultural nature? • Semiotics...or semantics? • ...the ontology of... iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 4. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 5. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 6. Being cognition conceptualization •Personal cultural cultural schemas culture emergence •Conceptual environment experience folksonomies formal ontology •Non-hierarchical globalization granularity Heidegger identity indigenous •Vocabularies information interoperability IST knowledge language metaphor narrative networks ontologies •Shared ontology perception phenomenology philosophy •Stable schemas sdi semantic web semantic networks semantics sharing •Power Laws social network spatial structure tagclouds tagging tags •“Collaborative” taxonomies technology TEDTalks thesis truth understanding values visualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 7. Being cognition conceptualization •Personal cultural cultural schemas culture emergence •Conceptual environment experience folksonomies formal ontology •Non-hierarchical globalization granularity Heidegger identity indigenous •Vocabularies information interoperability IST knowledge language metaphor narrative networks ontologies •Shared ontology perception phenomenology philosophy •Stable schemas sdi semantic web semantic networks semantics sharing •Power Laws social network spatial structure tagclouds tagging tags •“Collaborative” taxonomies technology TEDTalks thesis truth understanding values visualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 8. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 9. Lambiotte & Ausloos 2005 Kipp & Campbell 2006 Santos-Neto, Ripeanu & Iamnitchi 2007 Schmitz 2006 “collaborative” Jäschke, et al. 2007 Choi & Lui 2006 Capocci & Caldarelli 2007 Cattuto, Loreto & Pietronero 2004, 2007 iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 10. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 11. Personal use, personal vocabulary iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 12. Personal use, Social environment personal vocabulary iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 13. Personal use, personal vocabulary Personal becomes shared Social environment iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 14. Personal use, personal vocabulary Social environment Personal“collaborative”? But is it becomes shared iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 15. Personal use, personal vocabulary Social environment Personal becomes shared But is it “collaborative”? iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 16. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 17. Collaborative implies… ...working together with a shared understanding towards some goal—that there is active, focused, and agreed upon intent and supporting structure among a group of persons to achieve a specific goal or set of goals. (Wood & Gray 1991; Hvienden 1994, Saab et al. 2008) iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 18. Collaborative implies… ...working together with a shared understanding towards some goal—that there is active, focused, and agreed upon intent and supporting structure among a group of persons to achieve a specific goal or set of goals. (Wood & Gray 1991; Hvienden 1994, Saab et al. 2008) ...a single culture iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 19. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 20. Collective Collaborative Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 21. Collective Collaborative Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 22. Collective Collaborative Social Cultural Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 23. Collective Collaborative Social Cultural Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 24. Collective Collaborative Social Cultural Shared Shared Vocabulary Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 25. Collaborative Cultural Shared Conceptualization iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 26. Cultural iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 27. • Emergent • Intrapersonal schemas • Extrapersonal structures Cultural • Semantic • Shared ontologies • Multiple cultural identities & perspectives iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 28. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 29. Emergent Culture Model iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 30. Emergent Culture Model Schemas iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 31. Emergent Culture Model Schemas Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions National Culture Culture iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 32. Emergent Culture Model Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Phenomenon n t Conte iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 33. Emergent Culture Model Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 34. Emergent Culture Model Culture Emergence Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 35. Emergent Culture Model Culture Emergence Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 36. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 37. • Ontic • Semiotic • User-Resource-Tag • Convenient for data Social mining (Hotho et al. 2006) •Semantic? • Lexical, not conceptual • Dominant cultural group iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 38. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 39. user Semiotic resource iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 40. user Semiotic resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 41. user Semiotic resource tag (signified) (signifier) iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 42. user Tri-Concept semantics Relationship resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 43. user Tri-Concept semantics semantics Relationship resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 44. user Tri-Concept semantics semantics Relationship resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 45. user semantics Cultural resource tag iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 46. all users Social No shared resource conceptualizationall tags iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 47. Culture Emergence Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 48. Social Approach Culture Emergence Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 49. Social Approach Struc ture Entity Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 50. Struc ture Entity Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 51. Semanticity requires... Culture Emergence Schemas Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 52. Semanticity requires... Culture Emergence Schemas Semantics Struc ture Personality Traits Organizational Dimensions Dimensions Entity National Culture Culture Semantic Tags Phenomenon n t Conte truc tures er s onal S Extrap che mas er s onal S Intrap iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 53. iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
- 54. Interacting Cultural Identities iConference 2010, Feb 3-6 The Ontology of Tags University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
Editor's Notes
- 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.