Just as I slowly began to appreciate how very many “ubiquitous computings” there are in the writing of Everyware, I’m now really beginning to understand that there are at least four different levels at which the term “digital urban” is understood (and to a perhaps surprising degree, these are really four discrete and non-communicating communities):

- The representationalists. GIS specialists, map geeks, infovis folks, virtual-world enthusiasts, and others primarily interested in data-based modeling.
- The architects: Primarily concerned with production, the new morphologies afforded by digital tools, in the context of discrete structures (and occasionally, infrastructures). There’s historically been little overlap in personnel or activity between this group and the previous; Google’s acquisition and integration of SketchUp began to change this.
- The phenomenologists: This is where I’m most comfortable, and what I’m most comfortable speaking about. Stuff at the UX level. Augmented reality, the content of building-scale displays, mobile/wearable/gestural interfaces - basically everything that isn’t purely data-driven.
- “The industry”: People who stand to make money off any of this, or for whom the prospect has some practical utility, but have no other interest in it per se. Advertisers, marketers, real estate brokers. I’d include public services here: police, fire, ambulance, and other GIS clients.

I’m not at all sure that’s the right (or even a useful) taxonomy, but it’s the one that’s beginning to take shape as I think about this stuff more rigorously. Does any of that make sense?