Difference between revisions of "Talk:Guidebook"
(discussion on the types of objects in the guidebook) |
(comments from guidebook TOC moved here) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | == | + | ==Processes and products in guidebook== |
| + | |||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
|Dispute= All content in the guidebook, excluding theoretical foundations and glue pages, should be process descriptions | |Dispute= All content in the guidebook, excluding theoretical foundations and glue pages, should be process descriptions | ||
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | ||
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| − | {{defend|# | + | {{defend|#2): |On the level of actual assessment there are the processes themselves and the products (structured descriptions of reality) themselves. A guidebook should be about the processes and the about the products, i.e. it should contain process descriptions and product descriptions. Because the types of products that different processes produce are already described under the ''structure of the process/output format'' attribute, there is no need to make separate product descriptions.|--[[User:Mikko Pohjola|Mikko Pohjola]] 13:15, 18 January 2008 (EET)}} |
| + | |||
| + | {{attack|#3: |When there is a clear 1 – 1 relationship between process and product (eg DALY process – DALY product), we will only ask for description of either process or product, in order to avoid confusion. In most cases, the process is the important object that needs to be described, and in practice the methods etc. described in the guidebook will be process descriptions. When there is no such direct 1 – 1 relationship, we will ask for separate description of process and product. An example of this is meta-analysis (process), and the exposure response function (ERF) (product). Even though the process of meta analysis can lead to an estimation of the ERF, the meta analysis can also lead to an estimation of another product (e.g. severity weight), and an ERF (the product) can also be derived from another process (e.g. expert judgement).|--[[User:Anne.knol | Anne Knol]]}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{comment|#1: |I think, the processes and products should be put together and not separated too much.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 17:29, 14 January 2008 (EET)}} | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Frameworks in guidebook== | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{discussion | ||
| + | |Dispute= Guidebook contains descriptions of a general assessment framework and the Intarese framework | ||
| + | |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | ||
| + | |Argumentation = | ||
| + | {{attack|#1: |Why is cost-benefit analysis "another framework" in the guidebook?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 10:27, 17 January 2008 (EET)}}}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Tools in guidebook== | ||
| − | {{ | + | {{discussion |
| + | |Dispute= Tools are operational descriptions process management and mostly described in relation to the particular methods they relate to | ||
| + | |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | ||
| + | |Argumentation = | ||
| + | {{comment|#1: |Result database is described as a tool in two places|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 16:22, 30 January 2008 (EET)}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 08:58, 1 February 2008
Processes and products in guidebook
| Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←#2): : On the level of actual assessment there are the processes themselves and the products (structured descriptions of reality) themselves. A guidebook should be about the processes and the about the products, i.e. it should contain process descriptions and product descriptions. Because the types of products that different processes produce are already described under the structure of the process/output format attribute, there is no need to make separate product descriptions. --Mikko Pohjola 13:15, 18 January 2008 (EET) ⇤#3: : When there is a clear 1 – 1 relationship between process and product (eg DALY process – DALY product), we will only ask for description of either process or product, in order to avoid confusion. In most cases, the process is the important object that needs to be described, and in practice the methods etc. described in the guidebook will be process descriptions. When there is no such direct 1 – 1 relationship, we will ask for separate description of process and product. An example of this is meta-analysis (process), and the exposure response function (ERF) (product). Even though the process of meta analysis can lead to an estimation of the ERF, the meta analysis can also lead to an estimation of another product (e.g. severity weight), and an ERF (the product) can also be derived from another process (e.g. expert judgement). -- Anne Knol --#1: : I think, the processes and products should be put together and not separated too much. --Alexandra Kuhn 17:29, 14 January 2008 (EET) |
Frameworks in guidebook
| Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤#1: : Why is cost-benefit analysis "another framework" in the guidebook? --Alexandra Kuhn 10:27, 17 January 2008 (EET) |
Tools in guidebook
| Statements:
Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
--#1: : Result database is described as a tool in two places --Jouni 16:22, 30 January 2008 (EET) |
