This awareness is important especially when researchers want to replicate the real world into a virtual one or adopting real-world metaphor in designing.
However, in terms of the papers themselves, especially the first one, there are still many questions worth asking.
At the beginning of Section 4, the author said "space is the structure of the world". I am wondering whether such framing applies for situations such as 'personal space'. Is the author narrowing or distorting the concept of 'space', making it works only for his theory? If not, then the notion of 'space' itself might already contains something that 'place' implies: maybe it is a matter of different interpretations of 'space' by different people. Has the author considered citing different interpretations of space instead of offering his own definition only?
Another question comes to the 'boundary' of 'place'. The author describes place as "a communally-held sense of appropriate behavior, and a context for engaging in and interpreting action". Is this similar to the concept of 'occasion'? Or even a broader concept? Is it potentially dangerous if 'place' contains too many factors and the argument ends up being not 'space != place' but 'space != everything'?
In talking about the examples of Xerox and Bellcore' attempts to link public spaces, the author mentioned different settings of camera and attributed the success or failure (mostly?) to these settings. I am wondering whether it is a matter of design or deploy when it comes to the setting of camera. It might cross the line but being part of deploy implies that it might not be the fundamental cause of success or failure, as the researchers can always re-configure the setting without changing their design idea.
