Talk:Assessment
| 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)
--#3: : Indeed, the causal diagram is only an alternative way of representing the contents of an assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 14:42, 15 May 2008 (EEST) --#(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. --Alexandra Kuhn 17:27, 9 June 2008 (EEST) |
| 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) |
| Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←#1: : Using assessment product and endpoints is a bit confusing. what do you mean by this? results of the indicator variables?, results of the assessment? (whatever this is), health endpoints? Is the assessment product the assessment as a whole (i.e. net of variables at a certain stage in time) or the results of certain indicators? --Alexandra Kuhn 12:17, 14 May 2008 (EEST)
|
