A Taskonomy for the Semantic Web
Review 1 by Manfred Hauswirth:
The paper argues that the current interaction metaphors on the Web and related systems are (too) document centric and too focused on search / retrieve and thus may be insufficient / inadequate / inefficient for the types of interactions and goals people are using them. To make this point the paper provides a nice and informative survey of recent work on how people interact with / use the Web and email. Unsurprisingly, these systems are used in ways never imagined by their creators (as most successful system which are around long enough) and this creates technical and usages problems. I like the survey but - being not from the field of user interaction analysis - I would have liked also a more direct comparison at the end of the discussion, e.g., a table listing classification criteria, pros & cons, new uses, etc. of the Web, email, etc. to make it easier to understand more obvious where the gaps / problems actually are.
On the basis of this analysis the paper argues that the current interaction models are suboptimal. I agree to this. To support this, I would have liked a more systematic disussion of these types of interaction in Section 3. URIs and Linked Data are means to an end. What do they buy me more concretely? I think this is quite straight-forward to demontrate but necessary to really make the argument strong.
I like the taxonomy in Section 4. It makes a lot of sense to me. However, I have 2 comments: I do not really see a lot of difference between Exploring and Evaluation, probably they can be unified. The same applies in my opinion to Asserting and Discussing. Discussing as described may be seen as a superset of Asserting.
Reference to Broder, line 3 of 1.2 is missing.
 "Spring" is not the volume :-)
 misses the year
, , ,  "," before page numbers
Review 2 by Mark Gahegan:
This paper presents a very approachable summary to the problems we face with legacy metaphors of the document as the means to both describe (search for) and be supplied with web content. It is an out-moded notion and the authors present clear arguments from the perspective of Web pages, email and IM to show that this is the case.
The paper is very well written, easy to follow, clear and concise. It presents an alternative taxonomy of web related tasks, as its title suggests, which is an augmentation and reworking of several existing approaches, but with a clearer focus on the intention of the user, rather than the technology, media or action. it is thus a deeper semantic, and probably carries more useful information--if we can figure out how to capture this information!
This is the only aspect I would like to see added...how do we recognise the intention, so that we can support it better? Are you imagining that these intentions form the interface. How is this idea to be operationalised. Adding some ideas about this would be very helpful to this reader.
From the abstract, agree that it is inescapably important to have an understand of goals & tasks. a friend pointed me back to Wittgenstein's Zettel recently, the first note is on the primacy of INTENTION.
Section 1.2 The work of Broder needs a real reference.
Another way to think about classifying Web search might be via the kind of outcome desired: often, this may be a 'document' of some kind, but increasingly a user may wish to locate, say, a social network (ideally a graph), a scientific experiment or workflow (another graph) a route plan (ideally map), a date (ideally a calendar). All I'm saying is that we can try to break this unhelpful 'document' mould at both ends of the query.
Section 4. Monitoring: to me, implies some regularity, or repeating pattern., otherwise it is locating or grazing. It might help differentiate these to think of it that way.
Asserting to me also sounds like Contributing--which I think in the case of your example is probably closer to what the author may think they are doing