Talk:Guidebook: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
(discussion on the types of objects in the guidebook) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
{{defend|#1): |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)}} | {{defend|#1): |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|#2: |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]]}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 11:20, 18 January 2008
Product descriptions in the guidebook
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#1):: . 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) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--#2:: . 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 (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) |