Not being in the field, but having experience in making the judgement "Should I read this paper", here are a handful of observations:

For:

1. The paper has a handful of citations not entirely from the author (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=8141802968877948536&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en) but by no means a huge number of citations.

2. The abstract is remarkably clear (it's clear that this is a slight extension of other author's work), and the jargon-y words are easily figured out based on gentle perusal of the paper.

3. It looks like this paper is actually also a chapter in a textbook (http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-11876-0_8)

Against:

1. Nearly half of the paper's (very few) references in its reference section are self-citations.

I'd say it's worth reading if you're interested in it. Even the against-point above is more of a general heuristic and not necessarily a bad thing.