+++++++++++++++++++++ FME 2001 Paper Review Form ++++++++++++++++++++++

PAPER NUMBER:	59
CATEGORY:	2
TITLE:		Secrecy-preserving Refinement
AUTHOR(S):	Jan Jürjens

PC MEMBER:
NAME OF REVIEWER (if not PC member): 
 
Thank you for agreeing to help FME 2001 by acting as a reviewer. Please
complete this report and send it by e-mail to jno@di.uminho.pt
by Friday 27 October 2000.

For reference, the Call for Papers is at 
	http://www.informatik.hu-berlin.de/top/fme2001

Please note that everything below will be forwarded to the authors
except the last item (13.)
 
1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines):

 
2. RELEVANCE: Please provide a rating of the paper's relevance to the
   FME Symposium, using the scale:
      0 = Out of scope 
      1 = Marginal interest
      2 = Minority interest
      3 = Majority interest
      4 = Outstanding interest

   Numeric Rating:    
   
   Please comment your rating:
 

3. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: Please provide a rating of the paper's
   acceptability, using the scale:
        1 = Strong reject
        2 = Weak reject
        3 = Could go either way
        4 = Weak accept
        5 = Strong accept

   Numeric rating: 

   NB: There should be a correlation between the two rates above.
 

4. CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Please provide a rating oof your expertise in the
   area addressed by the paper, using the scale: 
        1 = Know virtually nothing about this area
        2 = Not too knowledgeable, but I know a bit
        3 = Know a moderate amount, about average I'd say
        4 = Not my main area of work, but I know a lot about it
        5 = My area of work, I know it extremely well
   Numeric rating: 

   NB: PC members are responsible for ensuring that 1 is not used
   here. 


5. ORIGINALITY. What is NEW and SIGNIFICANT in the work reported here?

   Comment:

 
6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? 

   Comment: 
 

7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED?

   Comment: 
 

8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements,
   specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND?

   Comment: 
 

9. APPLICABILITY. If the work is primarily theoretical or conceptual,
   are the implications in terms of applicability adequately
   justified? If the paper is about a new formal technique, are
   satisfactory arguments presented in favor of the new technique?  If a
   methodology is proposed, is it sound? If experimental results are
   presented, is their relevance justified?

   Comment:

 
10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including
   suggestions for changes where appropriate.

   Comment: 
 

11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this
    paper?: 
    Are the figures and length acceptable?: 
    Are the references correct?: 
 

12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s),
    including pointers to missing relevant work: 
 

13. Use this space to provide comments that you feel are relevant
    to the review process but that you do NOT want forwarded to the
    author(s):
 
++++++++++++++++ End of Review Form - Do not delete ++++++++++++++++