Talk:Open assessment method: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
(Parameters corrected)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{discussion
{{discussion
|Dispute= Rename ORA into OA
|Statements= Rename open risk assessment into open assessment.
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found)
|Resolution= Accepted.
|Argumentation =
|Argumentation =
{{defend|#1: |We should rename Open Risk Assessment into Open Assessment as it has a wider field of application than just Risk Assessment.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 17:06, 6 March 2008 (EET), --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 00:59, 8 March 2008 (EET)}}
{{defend|1|We should rename Open Risk Assessment into Open Assessment as it has a wider field of application than just Risk Assessment.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 17:06, 6 March 2008 (EET), --[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 00:59, 8 March 2008 (EET)}}


{{attack|#2: |OA does not refer to environmental health impact assessment (what heande is about). It can therefore refer to an assessment of any issue what so ever (e.g. impacts of acid fall-out on lichen growth). But yes, it is however reasonable to seek for a wider field of application. Something similar as EIA (environmental impact assessment) should be chosen. How about OHIA?|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 11.45, 7 May 2008}}}}
{{attack_invalid|2|OA does not refer to environmental health impact assessment (what heande is about). It can therefore refer to an assessment of any issue what so ever (e.g. impacts of acid fall-out on lichen growth). But yes, it is however reasonable to seek for a wider field of application. Something similar as EIA (environmental impact assessment) should be chosen. How about OHIA?|--[[User:Anna Karjalainen|Anna Karjalainen]] 11.45, 7 May 2008}}
:{{attack|3|Methodologically, there is no need to distinguish environmental health issues from others. Therefore, open assessment is the right word for the method and its products.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 11:27, 12 June 2008 (EEST)}}
}}

Latest revision as of 12:11, 16 November 2009

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Rename open risk assessment into open assessment.

Closing statement: Accepted.

(A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation:

←--1: . We should rename Open Risk Assessment into Open Assessment as it has a wider field of application than just Risk Assessment. --Alexandra Kuhn 17:06, 6 March 2008 (EET), --Jouni 00:59, 8 March 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--2: . OA does not refer to environmental health impact assessment (what heande is about). It can therefore refer to an assessment of any issue what so ever (e.g. impacts of acid fall-out on lichen growth). But yes, it is however reasonable to seek for a wider field of application. Something similar as EIA (environmental impact assessment) should be chosen. How about OHIA? --Anna Karjalainen 11.45, 7 May 2008 (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--3: . Methodologically, there is no need to distinguish environmental health issues from others. Therefore, open assessment is the right word for the method and its products. --Jouni 11:27, 12 June 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Talk:Open_assessment_method&oldid=11823"