We pointed out then that Thurow's fault line separates mechanical goods and intellectual services. He identifies a problem to which we see a solution in a world culture passing from a mechanical/industrial paradigm into an information/communication oriented society.

We went on to reinforce our belief that Thurow's capitalism/brainpower split has deep philosophical roots. Present beliefs about "capitalism" we now feel can be attributed to prejudiced views generated by incomplete understanding of commercial patterns. Economic trade we found is naturally complemented by an equally valid notion of intellectual property. As we studied the balancing of debts and credit in double entry bookkeeping, we found economic and intellectual aspects also playing balanced roles as natural complements in commercial trade. Balance it seems is an intrinsic ordering process found in nature.

For example, our stated goal for Phase I is to create a mathematical model for double entry bookkeeping. But instead we will be creating a grammatical model for double entry bookkeeping composed of balanced relations between mathematical/grammatical aspects typical of complementary roles played by debits/credit in a bookkeeping system.

Where, for example, mathematics differentiates the component identity of an electron to integrate electron behavior among other components in a mechanical context, grammar serves a simultaneous complementary role. While mathematics reconciles a behavior focus, grammar integrates coordinate identification of that electron into a differentiated image among other components in an informational context-an historical image identity complementary to real behavior.

Bookkeeping records a business history. A debits view differentiates change in an artifact context, then integrates such change, along with other artifact changes, as an artifact work definition. A simultaneous credit view integrates changing ownership to differentiate such change into a history of ownership assignment changes-an holistic ownership image.

We entered our Phase I feasibility study with these four stated objectives that drove the four goals reported in this final report of Phase I activity.

• Create a mathematical model describing traditional double entry bookkeeping and test the validity of that model by observing its predictions in real world, community based, systems.

• Write, in pattern form, bookkeeping's pattern of integrity, when compared to patterns in mathematical form and patterns in thermodynamic energy transformations.

• Create an analysis and design of a working model based upon the prototype model previously worked out by one of our own senior investigators.

• Use our prototype software to administer our own grant expenditures, to further create a community based joint venture in the image of the network business model being build.

Patterns in bookkeeping form binary units. Why? This report now adopts a theme from physical science to support bookkeeping's binary pattern language. In doing, we will argue that bookkeeping mocks universal patterns to which natural phenomenon itself is held accountable.

"The discovery and classification of the different radiations[sic], the proof of the identity of their nature, permitted scientists forty years ago to distinguish two distinct entities in the physical world: on one hand, matter formed of atoms, which themselves are constituted by collections of protons and electrons, i.e., the elementary grains of electricity; on the other, radiation made up of the whole scale of radiations which are identical in nature and differentiated from each other only by the value of their wave length. Matter and radiation are completely independent realities, for matter can exist without any radiation and radiation can traverse regions of space entirely empty of matter. Nevertheless, one of the essential problems of physics is the study of the interactions which occur be- tween matter and radiation when the two exist together." The Revolution in Physics, by Louis de Broglie, Noonday Press, 1953

Debits/credit relations are balanced by (1) artifacts trading energy be- tween material components in space requiring sequential, linear interpretation and (2) ownership trading energy between radiant coordinates in time requiring holistic, nonlinear interpretations-the intellectual switch by which mean- ing changes instantly, with little regard for mechanical consequences tied to an intellectually switched decision. Commerce must relate eco- nomic resource production, as fact, to intellectual historical policy, as inter- pretation-the story image. Traditional double entry bookkeeping, we will ar- gue, reports paradoxical linear/nonlinear changes as artifact/ownership in a binary relation where balance yields a value basis as "capital." Capital sets ar- tifact equal to ownership regardless of which, in any particular context, changes.

Working out an underlying model to serve as bookkeeping's framework has two goals in mind. The first is to extend bookkeeping language to include a network compliant business model. The second is to resolve philosophic confusion relative to intellectual property. Today's preponderant cultural philosophy is still set by scientific experience over the past 500 years in which linear systems were thought to be "Science"-even though quantum physics, whose validity few scientists doubt, approaches its 100th birthday. Philosophy seems last to change.

Our bookkeeping research has reinforced our idea that commerce creates maximum cultural value when trade balances complementary linear/nonlinear relations. A computer program is a nonlinear digital switching device that affects such balance. Computers changing cultural balance manifests itself in a new type of intellectual property that calls for a need to implement the balancing relation. Bookkeeping language itself sheds new light upon digital switching in the way debits and credit resolve artifact and ownership refined to track intellectual property contracts. Although we now argue that bookkeeping language is not mathematically based, we do believe that its primary grammatical base contains complementary mathematical language.

Generally speaking bookkeeping's debits/credit system demonstrates that mathematics itself is a pattern of modeling mechanical facts, while simultaneous grammatical patterns model informational interpretation. We will identify what we believe forms the break point in logical types between the pattern languages of mathematical fact and grammatical interpretation.

But to change a mindset balance entrenched in mechanical/mathematical superiority, requires equally powerful reasons to change. Our study suggests that a need to effectively manage ownership of computerized, commercial communication networks is that reason. Bookkeeping that commercialized artifacts, in an industrial age, we argue, must now be extended to commercialize ownership of intellectual property in a communication age. Bookkeepers know how to account for economic production. We must learn to account for complex communication policy.

Our model suggests that where artifacts give rise to economic production, ownership gives rise to an intellectual policy. Where economic artifacts are individual products, intellectual ownership is rooted in common law. Artifacts primarily form linear systems; ownership primarily forms a nonlinear system. Bookkeeping tracks the two in a binary pattern system in which linear/ nonlinear languages play complementary roles in primary/secondary relations. This solution argues that to focus one element of a simultaneous binary pair, one chooses the linear or the nonlinear system to receive one's focal interest. "Primary focus" is the concept "context" recognized in pattern study . Am I, one must ask, looking at this transaction as artifact in the debit system, or, am I looking at this transaction as ownership in the credit system? The binary nature of primary/secondary relations, we show, use a fractal focal image. Recursive fractal images, as context types within context types, enable interpretation to whatever degree of precision one wishes to invest in analytical analysis of a particular recursive context pattern.

Binary systems are confusing to follow. And in fact our goal is to study them, build them into tightly working applications, and then live the pleasure of letting them be, which, for most of us, a computerized culture makes possible. To communicate within a binary reasoning paradigm, we introduce a logographic language developed by the Chinese 3000+ years ago. The I Ching language fits a model of change that is both binary and covariant. Content and context, as binary relations, can be either linear or nonlinear systems. Chinese literature calls the binary types "The Yielding" and "The Firm." Later these came to be known as "Yin" and "Yang." Translating the symbols to bookkeep- ing, yin is the debt system, yang is the credit system.

The I Ching logogram, we argue, is based upon complementary relations within a unit entity-family, for example, may be structured by a complementary marital relation between female/male, as wife/husband. A contract binds unit members into a complementary set forming a unit whole. Each member of the set can vary independently of the complementary member in the set. We name this open relation a covariant system-in contrast to invariant system members, such as occurs in classical mechanical change, the complementary reference frame is fixed.

Fractional numbering demonstrates a pattern of a binary unit. In a fractions denominator and numerator, each value can vary independent of the other. While each aspect varies, a binary mathematical relation sets unit value. Bookkeeping reverses the pattern of binary logic by setting 'unit value' to one-numerator equals denominator. This pattern of forced equality forms a breakpoint separating mathematical and grammatical language into analogue and digital types of logical patterns. Analogue logic changes in linear-sequential-order, working from the bottom up; digital logic changes in nonlinear-holistic-order, working from the top down-setting unit value, resets subordinate values in a holistic order of change among a membership hierarchy. Analogue logic treats space value as unique and time value as universal; digital logic treats space value as universal and time value as unique. And, finally, we argue that digital grammar works because polar balance is itself a natural order-energy structure balanced into matter and radiation. The I Ching's graphic language ideally expresses symbols in "top down" digital implementation of grammatically controlled language.

Our version of I Ching's logographic language has just five characters, all of which play a role in the logogram expressing a fractional number: The differentiated meaning of the five logographic characters in the language are described in the graphic image below:

The five graphic characters symbolize:

• Circle A primary context of focus.

• Broken Line Communicating analogue behavior.

• Solid Line Coordinating digital identification.

• Ellipse One or more component relations in an analogue context focus.

• Rectangle One coordinate image composed into a digital context focus.

Our grammatical model will work its way through an ideal bookkeeping system to demonstrate how a natural formation of complementary languages, outlined above, serve to express how artifact behavior and ownership identity is reconciled in trade.

Grammatical Model

Bookkeeping records work/image changes. The bookkeeper is charged with recording simultaneous `economic' and `intellectual' history, as an entity conducts business.

• By "economic" we mean: define a commercial value by contributions of real work received to create a subject artifact.

• By "intellectual" we mean: assign a commercial identity by distribution to an abstract image created to receive object ownership.

We modify "Image" by the term "abstract" to distinguish historical policy assigned to ownership as a method of informational identification. "Image" expresses ownership as radiant energy-interpretation. Bookkeeping's credit assigns "image" identification/value. "Image" in this way tells the story of owner- ship in abstract coordinates where any grammatically ordered physical marker system can serve to distinguish such ownership. Of course, from a user con- text, that "image" marker must be economically generative, as shown in the logogram below:

Where "entity as artifact" is receiving `generative behavior' assigned to "work", "user as owner' creates "descriptive identification" to define "work". Twin views of context need explanation. `Work' is simultaneous to two views-focal images. User and entity "work" interests differ, telling why double entry book- keeping must be entered double-once for each interest.

"User" obviously supplies mechanical "behavior" to improve artifact as "work". But the "user/artifact" contract is interested in "user" skill-uniquely coded to control behavior. We don't hire carpenters to repair watches. We hire differentiated `behavior' specific to "work". Therefore the "artifact" context receives "work" in the form of "generative behavior" while the "owner" context creates "work" in the form of "descriptive identification" - code instructing behavior skills.

Focal patterns also take place in the payment of services. "Entity" creates a value as "descriptive identification" - an "image" marker. "User", in turn, is looking for "generative behavior" from this image marker-will it spend in the marketplace? The system in both "work" and "image" contexts must track user differently from tracking entity, hence the need to double enter transactions according to reasoning unique to members within a context of their binary contract.

The logogram tells us that binary "focus" is an "artifact/owner" relation as members of one context-owner increased intelligent behavior in artifact-simultaneously, an orthogonal "work/image", as real/abstract relations, serves to transform the descriptive identification of ownership markers in one context into generative economic behavior in future contexts.

• By "focus" we mean: analysis patterns in which twin focal images (1) define generative behavior received into wealth, as work, and (2) assign descriptive identification created by wealth, as image.

Bookkeeping defines artifacts, such as "CUP", by tracking expense/revenue change into that artifact as import/export values. The sum of import/export tells me if I am trading artifacts profitably or not. As artifacts are improved, or traded, the bookkeeper assigns balancing ownership rights/obligations as individual property. In bookkeeping language, on one hand "CUP", as artifact, is defined by the contributed value of real work, while simultaneously on the other hand, `PROPERTY', as ownership, is assigned equal value as recorded abstract images.

Double-entry bookkeeping uses a binary define/assign pattern. Bookkeeping's binary pattern language resolves a paradoxical "covariance" between real work and abstract image.

By "covariance" we mean: a binary relationship between variable complementary members that make up the set of a binary unit.

A typical unit entity is a family contract-a household structured by complementary marital relations between female/male, as wife/husband. In general terms, a contract in which complementary roles are played as member-contributors to a unit whole. Within the contract each member-contributor in the complementary set-female/male-that form the unit entity, can each vary independently of the complementary member making up the unit whole. "Covariant" relations contrast with an "invariant" relation. Force, for example, measures component change in mechanical coordinate systems. As component behavior joins giving rise to force, the reference frame in the context of mechanical interpretation remains fixed .

Binary relations within bookkeeping's digital grammar are always covariant. Any change defining value in an artifact must be reflected in an assignment to ownership. A business entity manages "subject" resource/production by which artifacts are defined. Simultaneously, a business community controls "object" historical/policy by which ownership is assigned.

• By "subject" we mean: generative behavior as real component, such as an entity as individual artifact-behavior en masse.

• By "object" we mean: descriptive identification as abstract coordinates, such as user, as common ownership-identity as individual.

• By "recursive" we mean: a system where the structural pattern of content, forms the same pattern found in the context that contains content.

This logogram depicts artifact "import" as subject, and "export" as "object". "Import", as context, has subject/object attitudes where "resource" import defines artifact value, while `payment' import assigns artifact identity. Likewise, artifact's "export" attitudes can either `payout' assigned ownership in return for improvement or the artifact can "export" ownership as "product". Artifact change in bookkeeping is a debit system. The balancing ownership changes-credit system-will be described next.

To express balancing credit activity permutations our logogram becomes an eight channel system. For every artifact change generating a debit, the ownership system must describe a balancing credit. `Ownership' credit goes either to entity as `individual' or to `common' use. In network accounting, commerce focuses a combination of individual management and common leadership. Banking, government, and other community entities are a part of the commercial picture, working in common. When an "artifact" transaction is an "import", "ownership" must either pay, or promise to pay in the future, for that "import". If receipt is a `payment' in the form of a check, then "ownership" as "individual" increases "liquidity" by that amount. The same set of patterns apply to the export attitude. An "artifact" "export" "product" can be goods or services, stock in the company, payment of a debt, and etc. Where "artifact" "exported" "product" is exchanged for cash, "liquidity" increases; stock sold for cash increases "investment".

Each contextual type in the transaction system is identified by a binary code as shown in the diagram on the right. The value `0' represents an artifact. "0" tells us that this is a level one subject context within transaction as context. A value "1" represents ownership. "1" tells that this is a level one object context within transaction context. The appearance of "0" and "1" later in the hierarchy tell us where the ownership object emerges within artifact, and where artifact subjects emerge within ownership. Money, for example, can be a subject artifact, yet can, in a different context, be an object image. This binary solution to identify archetypal contexts within a complex system leads to effective machine readable systems where binary and recursive context recurs within context.

Transaction types are defined by channels in the diagram-eight trade categories-to be recorded into the journal. The journal is then posted to a ledger. We will pass through this process now, to show how traditional bookkeeping adopted a pattern that strays from a disciplined grammatical/ mathematical model. When we post transaction information from journal to ledger, journal values are assigned plus and minus operators according to an algorithm that serves to add a great deal of useful information in the context of the ledger. Plus and minus signs are unique to ledger object structure, however, and have no place in journal data itself.

Posting The Journal and The ledger The "journal" continues the pattern of binary and complementary control. The "debit" and "credit" define/assign artifact/ownership. Both debits and credit are systems of "identity/value" pairs. But, importantly, following the subject/object pattern, where "value" is the subject of "debit", "value" is object of "credit". Subject logic is analogue; object logic is digital. Real components defined by hard boundaries, as artifact; abstract coordinates assign a soft boundary, as ownership-a marker system that will spend.

When the "journal" records a debit "value" that value represents the action of physically real change in the artifact-money paid out for work-while the debit "identity" differentiates the image of the artifact within a system of artifacts. The credit is different. Credit `identity' defines a physical boundary within a picture image-a message where meaning is carried by a real vehicle, as medium-representing such meaning. I can combine debits in this transaction and call them "groceries" totaling $13.38. I can do this because the debit identity represents an aggregation of parts that behave universally. I cannot do this with credit because credit identity is a composite image, a picture, in which each part contributes unique meaning to the image as a whole. Credit "value" identifies economic worth within a boundary, among boundaries of the system as a whole. "Credit" value, on the other hand, can be combined to determine the image call value.

Journal and ledgers are binary partners. Where a journal gathers working data, a ledger expresses that working data in abstract images - tells the ownership story. The "ledger" naturally follows the binary logic in the I Ching logogram above. South/north hemispheres differentiate "artifacts" from "ownership", as debits and credit systems, while orthogonal east/west hemispheres differentiate "assets" and "liability", as the hard/soft boundaries of artifact/ownership.

Crossing hemispheres create quadrants as "import/export" debits and "individual/common" credit. You recall that there are no plus or minus signs in journal data. Journal data is as it occurs in world of experience. Plus and minus sign assignments in bookkeeping are a function of ledger reports and not a function of journal values. Both paper and computerized bookkeepers commonly make the mistake of (1) putting ledger operators into the journal, or (2) associating plus and minus signs with the debit and credit value columns.

See http://www.saldosystem.se/ for an illustrative example of traditional bookkeeping practices followed today. Peter Reivall, MBA, states: "The double entry bookkeeping originates from Italy. A monk by the name of Pacioli recorded it as an appendix to a scientific work in 1494. The reason why one chose to illustrate debit/credit with left/right in those days is probably, because calculators and computers were not yet invented. People had the use of the quill and a standing desk and the old (traditional) system was the easiest way to add manually.

But why has it taken such a long time before the adaptation to the obviously much simpler plus/minus? . [we define] debit as a positive amount, and credit as a negative one; this definition yields simple columns which directly show the current balances. The ledger journal separates the four different kinds of accounts (assets, debts/equity, revenues, and costs), and each type of account is concluded by an "other" column. This result in the balance line (the total of the columns) forming the balance-sheet and the income-statement. The check-up (the tape of the calculator) that plus = minus becomes the final accounts when the balance accounts and the income (profit & loss) accounts are calculated separately. The profit/loss, appears in both summations but with different signs, as the sum total becomes nought/zero. All programs for computerized bookkeeping work this way."

It is both true that (1) all computerized bookkeeping systems, so far as our research revealed, work in a variation on the method Reivall describes, and that (2) one can produce a general ledger in this fashion from which one can derive Statements of Balances and Profit [Loss]. It is fascinating to hear modern double entry users assume that medieval scholars who, refined double entry bookkeeping, did not have deeper reasons to differentiate debits from credit, other than to separate plus values from minus values into two columns. Nonetheless, there are fatal system costs when associating debits with plus signs and credit with minus signs in the journal data. Most importantly data that would classify work defining artifacts is completely mixed in with data classifying boundary ownership. And so all hope of doing cost accounting to anything more detailed than department, or what is traditionally called a "cost center," is completely lost. More importantly, if we are to build a network com- pliant bookkeeping system, one that tracks intellectual contributions, we must factor into our bookkeeping an element of time. If work definition is mixed in with boundary assignments, how will we ever know what image to assign the recorded time contributions to?

But more important yet, there is the compelling reason to extend bookkeeping architecture to include network business models. And so we now move on to the commercial relationship between entity and user. In doing we will demonstrate how a journal is recorded from the perspective of "entity", yet, simultaneously, can be read from the perspective of `user' when the user itself needs to report its own activity as an entity. The difference between entity and user, therefore, is the focal attitude as the context in which bookkeeping is recording transactions.

For example, when an entity buys supplies, the bookkeeper records a resource purchase. The vendor's bookkeeper, in turn, records that same transaction as a product sale. In this way, when bookkeepers following tradition, take a perspective of entity. But all transactions that give rise to that entity involve a user of that entity. The perspective of entity and the perspective of a user community give rise to complementary systems. Where the entity perspectives fits a hierarchy, a user perspective forms a network. Each user in a network, from an individual perspective, is the hierarchical center of its own universe. Perspective is the way one sees the world. The bookkeeper uses one of two perspectives: individual subject entity and common object users.

Entity as Pattern Langauge

A commercial subject entity is the sum total of all the transactions it experienced from day of birth. So in effect when we use the I Ching diagram to depict "entity" the logogram defines a pattern language shaped by the sum total of transaction types `entity' has experienced. But each transaction type, whether used to buy stock in the company, or work as manager of operations, or sell product, or buy services are each and every one in collaboration with a "user" of "entity" who is a member of a community interacting with that "entity". The diagram for this phenomenon is shown below:

Once all work contributions supplied by individuals along with ownership distributions valid in the community are accountably defined and assigned, the pattern of trade in our commercial system duplicates the pattern of cause and effect in any system of exchange, including a physical system fol- lowing the laws of natural science, where for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When trade occurs between entity and user, subject change takes a plus sign while object change takes a minus sign. Note that because subject and object are reversed in our `user' diagram at the point of trade, when `entity' posts a plus sign `user' posts a minus sign. Of course, if `entity' posts a `purchase', `user' will post a complement which in this context is a `sale'. And therein the system maintains balance.

When network bookkeeping is properly set, any change of value in assets, experienced by a commercial entity, is complemented by a change of value in liability, experienced by a community user. Double-entry is rooted in this pattern of action/reaction between individual entity components and a rela- tional environmental coordination described in a universal contract language. The above is a complex example of the fractional unit value pattern, typi- cal of the example with which we began our presentation of the Grammatical Model. Individual entity, as artifact, is a real work example of the denominator. Common users as owners is an abstract image as numerator. Because the lan- guage of interpretation uses digital control grammar in bookkeeping, each member-denominator as subject and numerator as object-set to a unit value of one in each transaction change, is continually adjusted for the covari- ant activity of the complementary member in the binary unit contract.

Once a binary pattern is set and codes are assigned to each archetypal context of change through which transactions can flow, routine coding can cre- ate a single journal of transactions capable of reporting ledgers for an entity, or for users of that common entity. (Recording intellectual change among users is new to bookkeeping.) Once community level accounting is in place new com- mercial capabilities can be enabled. For example, ownership of a rules based software system, used by the entire community, can be distributed on a merit basis to the actual contributor members of that particular software system in that particular community. This works because debits and credit interpreta- tion, focusing context within context, can be applied to any level of detail users of the system are willing to invest to know their individual contributions. A community of owners can be made up of many entity types. For ex- ample, the ability of a bookkeeping system to extend commercial influence into a culture requires a governing entity to make and enforce rules of ownership.

This, to date, is done by government. But we will argue in Goal #2 that gov- ernment control is not a practical solution for large software systems. Other important entities are banks and brokerage houses. There are also manufacturing, wholesale and retail entities. In fact, artifacts may have a great number of overlapping ownership stake holders as raw resources move into products circulating in the marketplace. A house, for example, may be owned by a landlord. The use of the space within the house may belong to a tenant by virtue of a lease agreement. There are countless examples of such overlapping ownership boundaries that a Network Compliant Bookkeeping System is capable of serving to distribute the power to make and enforce com- mercial rules.

But few commercial entities are more important to current cultural inter- ests than entities able to control common contract language of a commercial communication network itself. This, in effect, is what rules based software systems, such as operating systems, in fact do. Owning the intellectual rights to commercial communication systems is to own the power to `legislate' rules that such a commercial system will enforce within a community of professional users.

• By "legislate" we mean: to make object rules and enforce them as laws that will apply to all subject members in a particular user community.

Bookkeeping traditionally accomplishes its record keeping fete in a re- cursive pattern of binary relations where the measure of wealth is a balance set by individual assets and common liability. Bookkeeping grammar uses a four part strategy of `capital', `debits', and `credit', where capital is of two types. As- set capital generates the economic value recorded in debits, defined by work contributed to artifacts. Liability capital describes the intellectual identity re- corded in credit assigned into images as distributed ownership. Using a basis pattern to measure covariant binary relations is different in principle, for example, from using force to measure mechanical change. Force, as a sequential measure of mechanical change asks an observer to maintain units of measure such as foot/pounds, or feet per second, depending upon the content of context, of which there are many possible types of units.

Using equality as a basis of unity in binary relations, the bookkeeper draws upon an order in nature where living systems become whole as functions of complementary balance, typical, for example, of female/male in a cultural order, or gravity/electrodynamics in a natural order. By establishing capital as debits/credit value in complementary pairs, the bookkeeper can easily advise the business entity as to whether capital is in growth or decay, for that entity. This simple pattern may explain bookkeeping's monopoly as the business con- trol language of choice.

The question bookkeeping theory now asks-the foundation of covariant logical relations-"is debits and credit, tracking economic artifacts and intellectual ownership, a convenient bookkeeping construct, or is there a distinction inherent in complementary orders of natural phenomenon?" By arguing for a grammatical basis for bookkeeping systems, we are, of course, arguing that an economic and intellectual relation is in the nature of trade as a natural phenomenon. Therefore, patterns of study in common mathematical use, that regularly solve problems where `energy' is a basis to measure natural change, ought to work equally well to solve problems where `capital' is a basis to measure commercial change.

The pattern of equivalence where gravity/inertia are translated into energy is typical of a pattern of equivalence of debits/credit translated into capital. By establishing bookkeeping's covariance, future bookkeepers may draw upon a wealth of scientific study already worked out relative to covariance. Simultane- ously, mathematicians can use bookkeeping logic to establish a pattern of grammar to classify context in complex problems of analysis. One area that we expect will be particularly fruitful is Group Theory.

All of the bookkeeping practices offered in the above grammatical model have been coded into a prototype bookkeeping system. What's more, all argu- ments have been tested with real world data. We find nothing to stop this level of bookkeeping from being implemented at the Internet level. In fact, the major difficulty to be overcome is not its technical barriers, it is its cultural barriers. Cultural patterns that voluntarily accept a network business model promise to be a tough sell. They ask us to extend an imagined philosophy we did not cre- ate. Yet such cultural change is essential to balance control language change presently strained by the proliferation of software network monopolies. And the corrections, of course, must occur in a free market. We study the free market perspective, as a binary system, in Goal # 2.

"I think the connection between information theory and thermodynamics will hold up in the long run, but it has not been fully explored and understood. There is more there than we know at present. Scientists have been investigating the atom for about a hundred years and they are continually finding more and more depth, more and more understanding. It may be that the same will be true of the relationship we are speaking about." Claude Shannon, as told to Jeremy Campbell, Grammatical Man, pg. 52, Jeremy Campbell, Simon and Schuster, 1982.

Stated Objective: Write, in pattern form, bookkeeping's pattern of integ- rity, when compared to patterns in mathematical form and patterns in thermodynamic energy transformations.

The goal of a community based journal system was accomplished well beyond expectations, proving the worth of the I Ching pattern system upon which the work was based.

Stated Objective: Use our prototype software to administer our own grant expenditures, to further create a community based joint venture in the image of the network business model being build.

Cassius J. Keyser, in an essay titled, The Group Concept, has this to say about systems relative to mathematical group theory: .it is convenient to use the term `system'...the term system means some definite class of things together with some definite rule, or way, in accordance with which any member of the class can be combined with any member of it (either with itself or any other member). You should note that there are only three respects in which two systems can differ: by having different classes, by having different rules of combination, and by differing in both of these ways. The World of Mathematics, V2, pg. 1538 James R. Newman, Editor, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1956

See The Timeless Way of Building and A Pattern Language, Christopher Alexander, Oxford University Press, 1977.

I Ching, or Chinese Book of Changes. See translation by Richard Wilhelm/Cary F. Baynes, Princeton University Press, 1950.

We expected a mathematical model. But in double entry bookkeeping, we found, mathematics is subject to grammar.

"The Bookkeeper" refers to the "ideal bookkeeper." Our ideal bookkeeper is developing a machine readable language to increase the scope of bookkeeping capability. This calls for both time tested terminology, as well as introducing terms to define levels of structural differentiation not essential in economic bookkeeping applications.

Introduction to The Theory of Relativity, Peter G. Bergmann, Dover Publications, Inc. New York, 1976

See A Timeless Way of Building and A Pattern Language, Christopher Alexander, Oxford University Press, 1977.

See See http://sagan.earthspace.net/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/

An important distinction is that where differentiated aggregate states live in real space, integrated data composition, as image values, can be generated on an as needed basis in imaginary time. Generating ownership images in imaginary time is a fundamental role of computer systems and the source of interest in who shall own this intellectual property.

For work on the distinction between `crossing' and `call' see The Laws of Form, G. Spencer Brown.

For work on the distinction between definition and assignment that clearly explains the role of time in distinguishing between immutable and mutable objects (what we are establishing above as subject and object) see Structure and Inter- pretation of Computer Programs, by Harold Abelson, et al, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1996.

When we say "working system" we are referring to a prototype written in a obscure language call "Fred." The `Fred' language is not scalable to internet based solutions that we now have in mind. However, bookkeeping principles true for the prototype will also be true for a full system and will serve as a specification when that system is built.

See Design Patterns, Gamma, et al, Addison Wesley, 1995 Page 5 of 1 pages