Difference between revisions of "Talk:Open assessment method"

From Testiwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 4: Line 4:
 
|Argumentation =
 
|Argumentation =
 
{{defend|#1: |We should rename Open Risk Assessment into Open Assessment as it has a wider field of application than just Risk Assessment.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 17:06, 6 March 2008 (EET), --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 00:59, 8 March 2008 (EET)}}
 
{{defend|#1: |We should rename Open Risk Assessment into Open Assessment as it has a wider field of application than just Risk Assessment.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 17:06, 6 March 2008 (EET), --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 00:59, 8 March 2008 (EET)}}
}}
+
 
 +
{{attack|#2: |OA does not refer to environmental health impact assessment (what heande is about). It can therefore refer to an assessment of any issue what so ever (e.g. impacts of acid fall-out on lichen growth). But yes, it is however reasonable to seek for a wider field of application. Something similar as EIA (environmental impact assessment) should be chosen. How about OHIA?|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 11.45, 7 May 2008}}}}

Revision as of 08:38, 7 April 2008

How to read discussions

Statements:

Resolution: Resolution not yet found.

(A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

#1: : We should rename Open Risk Assessment into Open Assessment as it has a wider field of application than just Risk Assessment. --Alexandra Kuhn 17:06, 6 March 2008 (EET), --Jouni 00:59, 8 March 2008 (EET)

#2: : OA does not refer to environmental health impact assessment (what heande is about). It can therefore refer to an assessment of any issue what so ever (e.g. impacts of acid fall-out on lichen growth). But yes, it is however reasonable to seek for a wider field of application. Something similar as EIA (environmental impact assessment) should be chosen. How about OHIA? --Anna Karjalainen 11.45, 7 May 2008