547 Project III

WebGRID


Adam Wallace (wallacea) Homepage , Mail

Table of Contents.

Part I: Exploration

Desrciption of Grid Created

I decided to create a grid on cars, specifically cars that claimed the title of Sports Cars. My elements included cars ranging in power, style and price: Corvette, Viper, Neon Sport, Acrua NXS, Talon, Stealth, Lamborghini, Daytona and a FireFly Sport. I tried to include cars that are known for speed and disreguarded price, and also those excono-sports cars that were really just ordinary cars with a sporty look. My 5 contructs ranged from relativly binary to diverse: Slow/fast, 2-seater/5-seater, cheap/expensive, low/high horsepower, and American/Foreign. The choices of the elements and the constructs made the grid simple, interesting and predictable.

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:

LeftRight
1.Analyze InformationStored Information
2.Information SystemInformation Access Techniques
3.On-lineNetworked or Standalone
4.ObjectifiedHyperactive
5.Stable ExistenceVolatile Existence
6.Platform SpecificPaltform 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:

PercentMatches
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.

Grid Comparison


Stable existenceVolatile existence
Development toolApplication

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.


Objectifiedhyperactive
ProgrammingMultimedia

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 SystemInformation access techniques
Targeted on overall systemTargeted 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-linenetworked or standalone
ApplicationDevelopment tool

Contrast
Completely different terminology for completely different distinctions. (this one is obvious).


Platform specificPlatform independent
Development toolApplication

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 InformationStored Information
Semi-autonomousOnly 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.


All in all I dont think that the two grids compared overly well. Some of the constucts corresponded but only in specific ways. There was only one consnenus and a couple of contrasts. Differnet people think and analyze differently, maybe if their were more grids in the comparision the resutls would be better.

Link To Grid


Part III: EDI and EFT Grid

Desrciption of Grid Created

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).

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.

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.

Link To Grid


Conclusion

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.