As a way to delve into the in-between theory-nature, consider the diagram. Notices how it employs the dualistic metaphor of  'the map' (abstract ideas)  vs 'the territory' (concrete 'stuff') whilst also incorporating the 'coupling distinctions'. Upon close examination one may notice the use of 'the blueprints'. In a way the blueprints may come in the form of material-stuff (actually printed originals of the blueprints) just as they may come in an immaterial-virtual-form (say an actual virtual original CAD file of the blueprints).  

The key here resides in recognizing how the blueprints indistinctly of being in virtual or physical form denotes a model thing used to link the idea of a house with the actual house and which  may be used as guidelines to actually build the house; be it in physical form, be it in virtual form (3D virtual simulator).  Immaterial of the form both houses may be explored and walked into. Note that the blueprints there exists all sort of distinctive mapping conventions employed that may be applicable to the domain of ideas and/or stuff and/or distinctions.

In a way the notion of a map may be seen as analogous to the notion of a blueprint salve for the notion that some will tend to think of maps as imperfect model simplifications in physical form rather than full complete virtual representations of the terrain.   For me maps corresponds to realities individuals think to be, whilst the territory corresponds to actualities of what actually happens to be. Sometimes the two appropriately correspond to each other and at times one be more relevant and employed to guide what happens in the other.