Part I: Exploration Part I: Exploration
Comments on Initial Impressions
I found the explaination of the terms confusing. I think that if there had
been an easier way to see an example it would have helped. The plural inquiries
confused me and I failed to see the significance. I initially did the grid
incorrectly. Instead of placing types of sports cars in the elements, I placed
attributes of sports cars, ie. torgue, top speed, 0-60, etc.. This made it
more difficult to enter contructs. After looking through the example done in
lab, I changed it what what is on the link. I found deciding upon different
constructs difficult. The triad function help, but sometimes the three
random elements were all significantly different. A re-triad button may have
been nice. The Webgrid matched the specifications correctly and grouped the cars
in groups actually seen in the car market (you get what you pay for). For
example all fast cars were expensive, and they had 2-doors. In these groups were
cars like the viper, NSX, corvette and Lambroghini. The percentages were nices,
and it may have been more suprising if I had not chosen such a predictable topic.Link to Grid
Part II: Exploration of Constructs on CPSC547 topics Developing Constructs
I found this part quite difficult. I developed the constructs through the triad function and I
often found it difficult to differentiate between the three elements with a dirverse construct.
Many of the contructs that came to mind were quite binary and did not apply to those elements not
listed.Description of Grid Created
The contructs added included the following:
| Left | Right | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Analyze Information | Stored Information |
| 2. | Information System | Information Access Techniques |
| 3. | On-line | Networked or Standalone |
| 4. | Objectified | Hyperactive |
| 5. | Stable Existence | Volatile Existence |
| 6. | Platform Specific | Paltform Independent |
which produced the following grid:
Contructs like 3,5 and 6 are quite binary and contructs like 1,2,4 are not very descriptive. The Construct matches included the following:
| Percent | Matches | |
|---|---|---|
| 87.5 | Stable Existence Networked or Standalone | Volatile Existence On-Line |
| 77.5 | Stable Existence Platform Specific | Volatile Existence Platform Independent |
The Focus function produced the following graph:
While the PrinCom function created the following:
If we look this the PrimCom graph we can see that the associations made by WebGRID are correct (more or less). All of the On-line systems (the Information Highway, Digital Libraries and Electronic Publishing) are all on the online side and other elements like Virtual Reality are are closer to the middle (because they are both online and networked or standalone). Most of the other construct-element relationship are represented in similar ways. I think the PrinCom graph depicts the relations between the elements and contructs more effectively than the FOCUS function. The grouping is better - it is easily seen which elements are similar to which others.
| Stable existence | Volatile existence |
| Development tool | Application |
Contrast
The terminology used by Dr. Gaines and I was completely different and were being used for different distinctions. Volatile and stable states have no direct relation to whether the entity was an application or a development tool.
| Objectified | hyperactive |
| Programming | Multimedia |
Consensus
We have both used the terminology here to desribe the same entity. I used objectified more in a sense of a programming language or application. I used the term hyperactive and a medium for interaction. I did not call this correspondence because I felt that the terms I used could be often substituted for DR. Gaines'.
| Information System | Information access techniques |
| Targeted on overall system | Targeted on Interface |
Correspondence
The constructs I used relate to the those entities that interact with an information system and those events that access information from an information system. Dr. Gaines' constructs apply to the same application, but the terminology is different.
| On-line | networked or standalone |
| Application | Development tool |
Contrast
Completely different terminology for completely different distinctions. (this one is obvious).
| Platform specific | Platform independent |
| Development tool | Application |
Conflict
The terminology may be interpreted the same here if we look at the contructs more in the sense that one entity if often used in advent of the other. (ie. we often used platform specific tools to develop platform independent applications), but this is a small similarity while all other attibutes of the construct differ emmensly.
| Analyze Information | Stored Information |
| Semi-autonomous | Only act as programmed |
Correspondence
That which interacts with data to make decisions to analyzation can be said to be semi-autonomous while that which only retreives infomation only acts as programmed. Same distinction, different terminology.
Part III: EDI and EFT Grid 
This is my EDI and EFT grid. The elements were chosen based on their importance within the EDI
and EFT diciplines. Three element were taken from EDI (Automatic Contract transfer, Store and
Retrieve transfer, Point to Point transfer), Three from EFT (Smart Cards, Electronic Putchases,
Electronic Cash), and the remaining two
(Automatic Stock Exchange and Automated Clearing Houses) are a combination of EDI and EFT.The contructs were more difficult to enter. Because the elements span both EDI and EFT, constructs that apply to both were difficult to find. I found that most of the construct I added were obscure or binary (ie expensive vs cheap).
If we look at the PrimCom graph we see synchronous applications of EDI and EFT on the bottom half
and asynchronous on the top. We see the EDI applcations groups on the right and the EFT applactions
grouped on the left with the Automatic Stock exchange in the middle (both EDI and EFT).
The FOCUS graph seems to group contructs and elements closer. For instance, Store and Retrieve transfer
is closly compared to Automatic Contract Transfer (with the former being the most popular form of the
latter). The graph also suggest that chancier elememts of EDI and EFT seem to be easilier beached, and
maybe a unwise choice if dealing with sensitive material.
Analysis of Grid
When we look at the matches prodeced by both the elements and the contructs, we see that the element
match is correct. It matches Automated Contract Transfer with it different applications (ie. Store
and retrieve transfer, point to point transfer and Electronice Stock Exchange). The matches from the
contructs did not really make sense: volatile/easy to use and non-volatile/difficult to use. 
Web Grid seems more effective on entities that are easily describable or are very broad.
Once you apply an specifiy entity they contructs and elements become more obscure and specific
to the individual. While entering contructs into Dr. Gaines' grid, I only had one contruct
that used the same terminolgy for the same distinction. About a quarter of the contructs matched
other constructs that seem completely different (in terminolgy and distinction). Those, however,
that matched were interesting, because it meant that these elements and contructs were relating
through their internal poperties, and this was being seen through a machine that had no knowledge
of the entities. The Web Grid has the potential of becomming very useful.Conclusion