Let me begin by introducing a distinction between “space” and “place.” The two terms are often opposed (if only because of the rhyme), but the precise differences in meaning involved vary across disciplines (geography, architecture, sociology) and individual scholars. Two of the parameters often invoked are degrees of constructedness and of extension. On the first measure “space” tends to be used of whatever is (relatively) natural or given, while “place” takes some such space and filters it through experience, interpretation, or construction. So for Harrison and Dourish (1996: 67) “spaces” define properties like proximity, relational orientation, presence/absence, and partitioning: “place” is “invested with understandings of behavioral appropriateness, cultural expectation, and so forth.” Hence “space” stands in a relationship to “place” not unlike that of “action” to “praxis” or “sex” to “gender.” On the other measure, “space” is often taken as a universalizing term, while “place” is more local or particularizing. Hence (Harrison and Dourish again), space is the “structure of the world; it is the three-dimensional environment,” while place is in space. Hence, generic expressions like “a place” or “some places” are far more common than “a space” or “some spaces.” There is a connection between the two parameters. If places are in some sense simpler than spaces, they can often be focalized through particular individuals or by groups with a lot of shared history, ideology, or the like. Hence, their constructedness is prominent.