Review Comment:
The paper "LinkZoo: A collaborative resource management tool based on Linked Data" describes a web based tool for the collaborative editing of arbitrary resource (the focus seems to be link collection and rdf data). The prime use case presented by the authors is one of collaborating researchers - although collaboration in general is supported.
The paper is written clearly, illustrates the tool well and is easy to read. A link to the tool is given that can be used by the reader to access it. This worked well for me - although some data seems to be missing from the demo workspace (compared to what is described in the paper).
The UI looks quite nice and the tool is fast. However, I am a bit sceptical with regards to the maturity of the tool. I ran into multiple errors (a "Null" appearing in a selection field and the failure to import the wine ontology) and the UI seems unpolished in parts (e.g. the upload view). Not even taking about things like undo or a history of changes. But - for a research prototype - this could be acceptable.
My biggest issue, however, is that I do not understand why I (or anyone) would want to use this tool. Maybe I'm too far from the Semantic Web community, but for the described task I would turn to mendeley, todoist and dropbox. Yes, its three different tools, but I don't see how the semantic features of LinkZoo - even when polished - should make up for the more task specific user interfaces and the better integration offered by such tools. What is the improvement that users see and that brings them to the site? A UI workflow like [1] is just not a realistic option for anyone but a semantic web researcher. It is for this reason - that i can't see sufficient importance and impact - that I recommend to reject this paper.
I would recommend to not focus future work on 'building social profiles' into LinkZoo, 'study scalability' issues or 'extend[ing] the coverage of resource types'. Rather I would recommend to focus on identifying a smaller user group and their needs and then address these.I think that building a more focussed system will make better use of the authors readily apparent IT-development skills and will have a greater chance for more impact.
[1]: The second way
is to use the property filtering option by selecting
resources that are papers. All resources of that type
will be listed in the result set and the property list
will be refreshed to the available properties of the
papers. Out of this list, the project manager will
select the property lz:assignedTo and all the possible
names will appear to the result set.
| 
