|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{discussion
| |
| − | |Dispute= Add causal diagram to the attributes of an assessment
| |
| − | |Outcome= Not accepted.
| |
| − | |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|#2: |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)}}
| |
| − | {{comment|#3: |Indeed, the causal diagram is only an alternative way of representing the contents of an assessment.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 14:42, 15 May 2008 (EEST)}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{comment|#(number): |I did not say that it has new infiormation. I SAID it does not contain additional information. BUT still I think it is useful to have it there.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 17:27, 9 June 2008 (EEST)}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{discussion
| |
| − | |Dispute= Rename risk assessment
| |
| − | |Outcome= Accepted.
| |
| − | |Argumentation =
| |
| − | {{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)}}
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − |
| |
| | {{discussion | | {{discussion |
| | |Dispute= Clarify the meanings of the words "assessment product" and "endpoints" | | |Dispute= Clarify the meanings of the words "assessment product" and "endpoints" |
| Line 25: |
Line 6: |
| | :{{comment|#2: |Assessment product is now defined. The word endpoint is no longer used. Result is the attribute for variables and assessments. The result of an assessment is a compilation of the results of all indicators and analyses in the assessment. |--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:16, 14 May 2008 (EEST)}} | | :{{comment|#2: |Assessment product is now defined. The word endpoint is no longer used. Result is the attribute for variables and assessments. The result of an assessment is a compilation of the results of all indicators and analyses in the assessment. |--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:16, 14 May 2008 (EEST)}} |
| | :{{comment|#(number): |Much better! So is the '''assessment product''' the same as the '''result of the assessment''' as you define it in your comment? If yes, we should add that definition in brackets to the first item of the article page.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 07:45, 16 May 2008 (EEST)}} | | :{{comment|#(number): |Much better! So is the '''assessment product''' the same as the '''result of the assessment''' as you define it in your comment? If yes, we should add that definition in brackets to the first item of the article page.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 07:45, 16 May 2008 (EEST)}} |
| − | }}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Appraisal==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{discussion
| |
| − | |Dispute= ''Appraisal'' should be added as one sub-attribute of definition
| |
| − | |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)
| |
| − | |Argumentation =
| |
| − | {{defend|#1: |If we consider ''appraisal'' as incorporation of value judgments within the assessment, the means by which this is done should be explicated in the definition. |--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EET)}}
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Scenarios==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{discussion
| |
| − | |Dispute= Scenarios should belong under definition/analyses
| |
| − | |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)
| |
| − | |Argumentation =
| |
| − | {{defend|#1: |Scenarios, meaning intentional deviations from the best estimate for a variable or a set of variables, are a means of analyzing the information within an assessment. Therefore scenarios should belong under definition, most nicely under analyses, instead of scope. A description of the base-case, i.e. the best estimate should belong to scope instead.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:14, 10 February 2009 (EET)}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{comment|#2: |The question still remains: is there some conceptual difference between conditioning and scenarios?|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 09:14, 10 February 2009 (EET)}}
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Participants==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | {{discussion
| |
| − | |Dispute= Participants should belong under definition
| |
| − | |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)
| |
| − | |Argumentation =
| |
| − | {{defend|#1: |Arranging, organizing, inviting participation to the assessment is actually a means of attempting to adequately answer the assessment question(s) defined in the scope. Purpose, boundaries and users (which aggregately could be called e.g. the assessment ''problem'') reflect the assessment external needs that are addressed. Participants (and scenarios as well) are more of means of getting about in making the assessment in trying to adequately reflect the ''problem''. If scope is intended to be the ''problem'', definition the ''hypothetical suggested solution to the problem'', and result the ''outcome of the solution attempt'', I would say that participants (and scenarios as well) belong to the definition.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 08:46, 12 February 2009 (EET)}}
| |
| | }} | | }} |
