Talk:Trip rate on a workday in the Helsinki metropolitan area

About the focus

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Total number of trips travelled per hour in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. Closing statement: Total number of composite trips travelled per hour in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ⇤--1: . The focus is ambiguous. It should be mentioned that the trips are only composite trips, not all. Rewording is needed. Juha (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--2: . Focus should be short and easily understandable. Details about the essence of the variable should be in the scope, not in the focus. --Jouni 22:33, 17 September 2006 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--3: . This alternative is almost as short, so the argument does not hold: "Total number of composite trips travelled per hour in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area". Juha (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Scope should not contain assumptions about composite fraction

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Scope: "Trips of one working day, based on year 2000 data. Private car trips as the starting point; 50% of them were assumed to switch to composite traffic." Scope should not contain assumptions about composite fraction. Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--1: . Assumption of composite fraction is of a very detailed operational nature, and it should not be in the scope. Juha (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)