Follow-up:
In regard to reference to comparing grids to "websites"... this brings up a good point. Everyone knows what "website" means... because that term is well-defined. A website is a website if:
1. It has an Internet presence
2. People have access to it (not necessarily all people, but access is available)
3. It's listed with ICANN (or whoever does that listing these days).
However... at the same time there are private pages which are used in companies internally, within schools, etc-- and they are not accessible outside their network or through the Internet. Can we call such a site or page a "Website" if it doesn't connect to the Internet? It has the same form. It uses the same software (html or whatever). It looks the same and feels the same as any other website. Then why isn't it a website? Because it doesn't connect to the WEB.
Of course we're not discussing identical concepts here... but it makes a point. In general people consider a "grid" to be a virtual world (at least that's what I and others perceive). It is evident that those who view the term "virtual grid" according to technical layout or mathematical concepts are not the norm. I would present that a one-sim "grid" isn't a "grid" just because the software it uses is capable of supporting a grid-- any more than an internal communications site created with web-creation software is automatically a "website". To be a website they would have to register with ICANN and be visible to the public (at least to an extent, even if it's to say "You don't belong here").
So good example, I think.