Review of Dokieli.

• This is an interesting and valuable tool. I believe there is a critical need for more tools like this, especially in Semantic Web and Web Science communities, that are averse to eat their own dog food.
  
• However, I find it hard for this publication to be accepted on a regular venue, given its lack of hypothesis, methodology, etc. This is a problem in general when presenting new Semantic Web tools that are not considered "new scientific contributions", something I disagree completely.
• I would like to see some linking from newly spawned instances to the original ones, maybe using PROV-O or other provenance vocabulary. I think linking the "ancestry" of an article is critical to enable a richer discussion. Apparently this can be done manually (via RDFa), but I don't think that is a good approach.
  
• Figures 2 and 3 are confusing IMO
• The link showing a growing number of articles shows an empty list.
• I'd like to see a further discussion on what are the plans to test Dokieli in real environments. I can imagine three levels of testing: (1) use of Dokieli among SemWeb researchers as a minimal (2) IT/CS researchers and (3) scientists in general. I think the needs and abilities of each group will lead to changes in the approach Dokieli has taken. For example, it is not clear to me that non-SemWeb people are interested in adding RDFa annotations. If that is true (and this is just an hypothesis), how can we encourage them?
• I think one of the most valuable aspects of Dokieli is the potential ability to include research data and other supplementary information, such as code. Although implicit, the authors would make a stronger case if they mentioned this particular use case, that I believe is critical in science. For example, it would be really interesting to be able to link papers to datasets, visualizations, iPython/Jupyter notebooks or other web-based data toolboxes.
• Another missing discussion is about versioning. Even if it is not directly related, many of us do use git+latex or other combination of tools for collaborative editions that allow version control. Apparently this is not addressed by Dokieli.

• CSS doesn't seem to work properly. I can't see any change when creating a H2 element.
  
• The authors forgot to mention Google Docs as a de facto standard collaborative tool on the Web that allows annotations.
• Menu on title appear too high and can't be used.
• There is no clear way to mark RDFa for the whole article.
• The RDFa option also forces me to copy and paste whole URIs. I can' imagine some service that provides autocomplete that could be useful for 90% of the times I want to add metadata this way.
• As any WYSIWYG editor, things can get really messy when inserting, deleting sentences in the middle of a paragraph. It would be nice to have a Markdown mode or something equivalent.