============= IEEE-TKDE REVIEW FORM =============

Please return your review form via email to

lyu@cse.cuhk.edu.hk

In addition, each year IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
acknowledges reviewer contributions by printing a list of volunteers who have
contributed their time and efforts. May we have your permission to print your
name, along with other reviewers, to express our gratitude?

___ Yes
___ No


IEEE COMPUTER SOCIETY
Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering

Paper No.:  

Author(s):  

Title:  

Name of Referee:  

Date to be returned:  July 15, 1998 or ASAP

Paper category: ____Regular Paper ____Concise Paper


SECTION I.  COMMENTS TO BE WITHHELD FROM AUTHOR(S). 

(Please use this section only for comments that might compromise your anonymity.
 Use Section IV for other comments.  Use as many lines as needed.)


EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE WILL BE RETURNED TO THE AUTHORS
==========================================================
SECTION II.  SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION - Overall quality is:

___Excellent   ___Good   ___Fair   ___Poor

RECOMMENDATION:

___Accept with no changes
___Accept if certain minor revisions are made (see Section IV)
___Author should prepare a major revision (see Section IV) for a second review.
(Not applicable if the paper is itself a major revision of a previously reviewed
paper.)
___Reject


SECTION III.  OVERVIEW

A). READER INTEREST

a). Is the paper of current interest to a reasonable segment of the IEEE 
Transactions readership?
___Yes  ___Perhaps  ___No

b). How will the level of interest change during the next five years?
___Increase  ___Little change  ___Decrease

c). Within its particular field of specialization, is the topic of the paper
considered important?
___Yes  ___Moderately so  ___Not really

B). CONTENT

a). Is the paper technically sound?
___Yes ___Perhaps ___Partially ___No

b). How would you describe the technical depth of the paper?
___Expert level  ___Specialist  ___Non-specialist  ___Superficial

c). Does the paper make a tangible contribution to the state-of-the-art in its
field?
___Yes  ___To a limited extent  ___No

d). Is the bibliography adequate?
___Yes  ___Yes, but see Sec. IV  ___No

e). To what extent is the material in the paper likely to be used by other
researchers and practitioners?
___Large ___Average ___Small

C). PRESENTATION

a). Is the abstract an appropriate and adequate digest of the work presented?
___Yes  ___No

b). Does the introduction clearly state the background and motivation  in terms
understandable to the non-specialist?
___Yes ___Probably ___No

c). How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?
___Satisfactory  ___Can be improved  ___Poor

d). Relative to the technical content, is the length of the paper appropriate?
___Yes  ___Too long  ___Too short

e). Is the English satisfactory?
___Yes ___No

f). How readable is the paper for a computer scientist or engineer who is not a
specialist in this particular field?
___Easy ___Self-contained ___Needs clarification ___Unreadable 

g). Disregarding the technical content, how would you regard the quality of
presentation?
___Excellent  ___Good  ___Fair  ___Poor


SECTION IV.  DETAILED COMMENTS 

(Please use this section to provide comments to the authors for improving
 and revising their paper.  The comments here will be more helpful to the
 editor and the authors than the numerical results in previous sections.
 Use as many lines as needed.)

============= END OF IEEE-TKDE REVIEW FORM =============