Paper:
An increasing number of neural memory networks have been developed, leading to the need for a systematic approach to analyze and compare their underlying memory capabilities. Thus, in this paper, we propose a taxonomy for four popular dynamic models: vanilla recurrent neural network, long short-term memory, neural stack and neural RAM and their variants. Based on this taxonomy, we create a framework to analyze memory organization and then compare these network architectures. This analysis elucidates how different mapping functions capture the information in the past of the input, and helps to open the dynamic neural network black box from the perspective of memory usage. Four representative tasks that would fit optimally the characteristics of each memory network are carefully selected to show each network's expressive power. We also discuss how to use this taxonomy to help users select the most parsimonious type of memory network for a specific task. Two natural language processing applications are used to evaluate the methodology in a realistic setting.

Review:
I really liked this paper and believe it could be useful to many practitioners of NLP, conversational ML and sequential learning who may find themselves somewhat lost in the ever-expanding field of dynamic neural networks.
Although the format of the paper is seemingly unusual (it may feel like reading a survey at first), the authors propose a concise and pedagogical presentation of Jordan Networks, LSTM, Neural Stacks and Neural RAMs while drawing connections between these different model families.
The cornerstone of the analysis of the paper resides in the taxonomy presented in Figure 5 which, I believe, should be presented on the front page of the paper. The taxonomy is justified by a thorough theoretical analysis which may be found in appendix.
The authors put the taxonomy to use on synthetic and real data sets. Although the data set taxonomy is less novel it is indeed insightful to go back to a classification of grammatical complexity and structure so as to enable a clearer thinking about sequential learning tasks. 
An analysis of sentiment analysis and question answering task is conducted which relates the properties of sequences in those datasets to the neural network taxonomy the authors devised. In each experiment, the choice of NN recommended by the taxonomy gives the best performance among the other elements presented in the taxonomy.
Strength:
o) The paper is thorough and the appendix presents all experiments in detail. 
o) The taxonomy is clearly a novel valuable contribution. 
o) The survey aspect of the paper is also a strength as it consolidates the reader's understanding of the families of dynamic NNs under consideration.
Weaknesses:
o) The taxonomy presented in the paper relies on an analysis of what the architectures can do, not what they can learn. I believe the authors should acknowledge that the presence of Long Range Dependence in sequences is still hard to capture by dynamic neural networks (in particular RNNs) and that alternate analysis have been proposed to understand the impact of the presence of such Long Range Dependence in the data on sequential learning. I believe that mentioning this issue along with older (http://ai.dinfo.unifi.it/paolo/ps/tnn-94-gradient.pdf) and more recent (e.g. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v84/belletti18a/belletti18a.pdf and https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.00144.pdf) papers on the topic is necessary for the paper to present a holistic view of the matter at hand.
o) The arguments given in 5.2 are not most convincing and could benefit from a more thorough exposition, in particular for the sentiment analysis task. It is not clear enough in my view that it is true that "since the goal is to classify the emotional tone as either 1 or 0, the specific contents of the text are not very important here". One could argue that a single word in a sentence can change its meaning and sentiment.
o) The written could be more polished.
As a practitioner using RNNs daily I find this paper exciting as an attempt to conceptualize both data set properties and dynamic neural network families. I believe that the authors should address the shortcomings I think hinder the paper's arguments and exposition of pre-existing work on the analysis of dynamic neural networks.