"This collective self would change and morph over time presenting who I am at that time. To create a specified ontology ahead of time (as discussed in this thread) would negate that personal development and the emergence of new ideas to share with others. I believe we need to make way for evolution. "
Kelly, this is spot on. There is no one conceptualization of a learner. Its like the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle ("the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured.") can be so aptly applied when we talk of describing the "collective self".
This is why personalization is so very tough. And it is precisely why BIG data is deficient because it makes for aggregate personalization (stereotypes).
It is also where RDF/Linked Data could be potentially most useful if only it could also *model* relationships (impact of changes) instead of just *describing* them. That is where Connectionists feel they can contribute because they do attempt to *model* the relationships.
I still feel uncomfortable about the difference in the way connective knowledge is defined by Stephen and knowledge is defined in the Semantic Web discussions. For the semantic web, knowledge is propositional and symbolic. Connective knowledge is neither (to the best of my understanding).