-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                            REVIEW FORM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

               3rd SIGDIAL Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue
                       July 11-12, 2002, Philadelphia

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Title:

Author(s):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Please rate the paper on the 8 dimensions listed below, according to the
proposed scale running from 1 to 5, where 1 means "poor" and 5 means
"excellent". Please use only the listed numbers.

Please also provide any comments you think appropriate to help the
Program Committee in making their final decisions; and, especially
important, please provide comments to assist the authors in improving
the quality of their final paper. 

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: sigdial2002@uiah.fi
by April 20, 2002.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Appropriateness: Does the paper fit in the workshop
        5: Definitely
        4: Probably
        3: Uncertain
        2: Probably not
        1: Certainly not


Correctness: Does the paper appear to be flawed technically and/or
	     methodologically?
        5: Impeccable
        4: The paper is OK
        3: Only trivial flaws
        2: Minor flaws that must be corrected
        1: Major flaws that make the paper unsound/inconsistent


Implications: How important is the work?
        5: Will change the future
        4: People will read and cite this paper
        3: Restricted interest
        2: Not of compelling interest
        1: Will have no impact on the field


Originality: How novel is the approach?
        5: A radically new approach
        4: An innovative use
        3: A new application of well known techniques
        2: Yet another application of well worn techniques
        1: Entirely derivative


Clarity: Is it clear what was done?
        5: Presentation is very clear
        4: Difficult, but understandable
        3: Some parts were not clear to me
        2: Most of the paper is unclear
        1: Presentation is very confusing


Does this paper fit one of the announced thematic sessions?
        4: Yes, Annotation Methods for Corpora
        3: Yes, Architectures for Dialog Systems: Agent-based vs. Pipelined
        2: Yes, Learning and Adaptivity in Dialog Systems
        1: No.


Out or In: Should the paper be rejected or accepted?
        5: I would fight to have this paper accepted
        4: I would like this paper accepted
        3: I am undecided
        2: I would like this paper rejected
        1: I would fight to have this paper rejected


Comments to the Program Committee (confidential):



++++++++START OF COMMENTS TO AUTHOR:     DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE++++++++


Title:

Comments to the Author:


--------END OF REVIEW FORM:              DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE--------