"Ontology" has more syllables than "tag," and therefore makes you sound smarter.

First of all, "Ying Ding" should definitely be the name of the next big Web 2.0 site ;)

I think that after reading these two articles, I should be able to describe how user tagging is like or unlike ontologies. However, "A Review of Ontologies with the Semantic Web in View" simply left my brain blank. I don't think this should have been the case. I thought I had a general understanding of ontologies. In a metaphysical sense, I "believe" in ontologies. I don't think my brain-blankness is a reflection on the article, but rather on the state of my brain after trying to create a MODS record.

Needing a better understanding of ontologies, I turned to my trusty friend Wikipedia. For anyone else whose brain is still reeling, try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28computer_science%29

I admit, I began reading the article on computer science ontology, and heard a sigh come from between my ears. Indeed, ontologies are what I thought they were. There is even a picture in the Wikipedia article.

To visualize an ontology, think of something that looks like your standard organizational chart. You've got the director at the top, followed by lots of lines and lots of boxes, showing the relationships from the lowest peon all the way to the highest paid executive. By looking at the organizational chart, you can identify different categories (divisions, classes, or concepts) as well as specific objects (individuals, in Wikipedia article). An ontology is basically a hierarchy. Keep this in mind as Ding describes it as "a term used to denote the shared understanding of some domains of interest, often conceived as a set of classes (concepts), relations, functions, axioms and instances" (Ding 2001, 378).

I think perhaps my mind works in a hierarchical--or ontological--fashion. I love del.cio.us, but often find myself trying to create relationships rather than tags. That is, I imagine little Windows folders, parceled out like the c:/articles/cats/africa example given by Golder and Huberman (2006, 199). I think "this website is part of," or "this website would come under..." Reading Golder and Huberman has encouraged me, though, because they identify seven kinds of tags, most of which I have used.

As I read, I started thinking of new and better ways to categorize my bookmarks and tags. Perhaps for each bookmark, I'll try to include a set of Golder and Huberman's tag functions: 1) "identifying what (or who) it is about;" 2) "identifying what it is;" 4) "refining categories;" and occasionally 7) "task organizing." Up until now, I've just been tagging haphazardly, sometimes using one tag, sometimes five.

Maybe it's not so much that my mind works in an ontological fashion, but that it has been conditioned that way. As I said, I picture Windows folders. However, the more I use tagging, the more that I wish I could tag everything in my life--especially all those old documents stored in my Windows folders. Both tools--tagging and ontologies--are simply part of sense-making. Our little human minds struggle to organize and track information so that it might be useful to us.