Talk:Assessment

How to read discussions

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) ⇤#(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. --Jouni 22:42, 31 March 2008 (EEST)

How to read discussions

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)

How to read discussions

Statements: Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation: ⇤#(number): : --Alexandra Kuhn 12:16, 14 May 2008 (EEST) {{{3}}}