Talk:Glossary

Glossary definitions

I am assuming that these glossary definitions are subject to editing. For example, I would disagree that "exposure" is generally associated with air pollution. Should I just make the change or should I put forward a case for it on this discussion page? Jgrellier 12:26, 14 November 2007 (EET)

I believe there is no common agreement yet within the project how the glossary is supposed to be edited and developed from now on after this first proposal. Currently there is a glossary page in intarese.org and this is a copy of it. there has been discussion, but no agreement on what to do next and which place is the place to contribute to developing the terms and definition etc. I would suggest we get started by first putting our comments on this discussion page (let's use the formal argumentation structure!) and see how the discussion picks up. Later on we can start editing the glossary page itself according to the outcomes of discussions (argumentations). --Mikko 13:18, 14 November 2007 (EET)

We should allow for multiple meanings

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: We should allow for multiple meanings. Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--1: . There are several meanings for one word, and several words are used for one thing. This should be acknowledged. I would like to see a glossary where we would accept all possible meanings of a word like in a dictionary. In addition to that, we should have a recommended usage in Intarese so that there would only be one "official" word for each thing. We could have argumentation on the recommendation, and this would of course happen in Wiki. --Jouni 00:26, 17 March 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--2: . There should be one meaning per word, what you call the "official" meaning. It could be possible to reflect different meanings but it must be clear what the main meaning of a word in the Intarese context is. Otherwise we will never have a common basis. I wish to discuss some words with keypersons before providing a draft definition that may be discussed in Wiki. Alexandra Kuhn--9:56, 30 March 2007 (CET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--3: . Intarese project is all about developing a new way of making environmental health risk assessments. This essentially includes creating new concepts/terms and redefining old ones to match the new needs and context as comes to be realized as project proceeds and our knowledge on the issues under research develops. The definitions of terms/concepts that are the very focus of this project can not thus be fixed and limited because we can not yet exactly predict the future developments that are to happen in this project. In particular the definitions should not be fixed based on old and out-dated approaches. --Mikko 11:38, 30 March 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--4: . That is true. But we cannot wait until the end of the project. We may redefine words on our way forward. --Alexandra Kuhn 11:52, 30 March 2007 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)