The cases that the author presents are comprehensible, but some of them are out of date; e.g. Digital City Kyoto has not been updated since October 2001. Currently some people communicate by exchanging information and construct a kind of virtual community and virtual trust via easy and common platform such as social networking services and blogs and the Internet-based cartography systems such as Google Earth allow people extract and customize geographical information much more easily instead of a single full fledged virtual public space. Since the author’s finding that the each public space has its main purposes and characteristics is understandable, so the author might need to mention current aspects to reinforce his/her focal points. 
In table 4, scoring criteria and weight points are not easy to understand. The author need to clarify how they are assigned these numerical values, otherwise this analysis seems to be very subjective.
For details, Kyoto Digital City is not correct, it is Digital City Kyoto. Some typos grammatical errs are also found; e.g. internet and Internet coexist and the use of among instead of between, so correct them carefully.