Difference between revisions of "Talk:Assessment"
(New page: {{discussion |Dispute= Add causal diagram to the attributes of an assessment |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) |Argumentation = {{defend|#(number): |Alt...) |
(one resolution) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
|Dispute= Add causal diagram to the attributes of an assessment | |Dispute= Add causal diagram to the attributes of an assessment | ||
| − | |Outcome= | + | |Outcome= |
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{defend_invalid|#1: |Although the causal diagram can be derived from the variables themselves and as such does not add any new content, it should nevertheless be listed here. Because it depicts the assessment and many people understand a graphic better than a set of abstract descriptions. Also, one sees if the variables one is creating fit together. I would even say, the normal way to scope an assessment is starting with the causal diagram (after the purpose and boundaries).|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET)}} |
| + | :{{attack|#(number): |Given its variables, the causal diagram itself does not contain additional information. Therefore, the diagram should not be an attribute or subattribute. However, it can be used as a subtitle so that the Definition divides into the ''Causal diagram'' which contains decision variables, indicators, and other variables; and then the other parts of the definition are ''Analyses'' and ''Indices''. In addition, it is recommended that the definition does contain the causal diagram used in the assessment. It is still not a sub-attribute, but rather a narrative description. |--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 22:42, 31 March 2008 (EEST)}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
|Dispute= Rename risk assessment | |Dispute= Rename risk assessment | ||
| − | |Outcome= | + | |Outcome= Accepted. |
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| − | {{defend|# | + | {{defend|#1: |The assessment structure is more general than only for risk assessment. Rename it therefore in assessment (or maybe open assessment).|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET), --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 22:42, 31 March 2008 (EEST)}} |
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 19:42, 31 March 2008
| Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←#1: Although the causal diagram can be derived from the variables themselves and as such does not add any new content, it should nevertheless be listed here. Because it depicts the assessment and many people understand a graphic better than a set of abstract descriptions. Also, one sees if the variables one is creating fit together. I would even say, the normal way to scope an assessment is starting with the causal diagram (after the purpose and boundaries). --Alexandra Kuhn 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET)
|
| Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←#1: : The assessment structure is more general than only for risk assessment. Rename it therefore in assessment (or maybe open assessment). --Alexandra Kuhn 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET), --Jouni 22:42, 31 March 2008 (EEST) |
