This is a generic term used in the MAP in related ways, and worth bringing together to consider the meaning of “space” in the MAP in general. It is documented in the section on Agents and Spaces as well as having its own page at Spaces, defined as:

living, membrane-bound contexts for meaningful coordination.

It looks like the generally best equivalent is HolonSpace, as everything is a Holon, so any space will be a HolonSpace.

• AgentSpace
• HolonSpace
• I-Space
• sovereign space
• We-Space

aSimonG:
The problem I have with this terminology is that a “space” is never in common usage (as far as I know) used with the implication that the space has agency — and the idea of a space having agency is clearly implied in the MAP documentation. In terms of the MAP, I see this in two conflicting ways. So when I read the following, I have qualms.

In MAP:
Groups are primary. A group is an AgentSpace — sovereign and membrane-bound.
Governance is native. Each Space defines its own governance model — not imposed by apps.
Data is whole. All the data, relationships, and agreements of an app live inside your membrane.
Authentication flips. You don’t log into an app — the app earns the right to operate inside your Space, subject to your terms.

Rather than a group being an AgentSpace, I would feel it far more natural for a group to exist within an AgentSpace. Rather than the Space itself defining anything, it's more like the agent whose space this is defines things. But yes, all the stuff lives “inside your membrane”, that makes perfect sense. As does the following point above.

Shortly afterwards, we have the section on The Cell as Metaphor.

A Space in the MAP is like a living cell — the basic unit of sovereignty, agency, and relationship.
It has a membrane, through which trust, data, and value flow — governed by consent.

It feels to me that we have a clear case of metonymy here, which can very easily confuse people. To try to resolve the confusion, what I would do would be to say something like, that, yes, the cell is a good analogy for the basic unit, but the space is, literally, the space occupied by the cell, not the cell itself. That's where the metonymy comes in. It is the cell, not the space, that has the membrane. The membrane serves to delimit the space. The analogy to the membrane is clearly the cell wall. Cells do have cell membranes, which are indeed active living parts of the cell.

I don't think it would be too difficult to perform this rather surgical alteration. I don't think it is merely cosmetic surgery; but even then, optics often matter. Perhaps I need to think more carefully about this and write separately; but here are some initial thoughts.

Coming back to the MAP documentation, I'd like to stress that in one sense I agree that the Space can be taken to delimit the context for meaningful coordination, in that everything within that space is part of the context, but then, in another sense, it is not the space that is the context, but what the space contains. And, as we see the richness of usage of the “space” term within the MAP, the concept of space is highly flexible, and can be (maybe, is actually) stretched to include anything which is relevant to whatever meaningful coordination is in play. That is, “include” in the sense of a space containing things, not “include” in the sense of the things in the space being constituent parts of the space. That would seem to me to be a category mistake. The brackets are not the same as the words in brackets.

• The Commentary on AgentSpace