DMN 1.2 RTF Avatar
  1. OMG Issue

DMN12 — Confusing semantics of ItemDefinitons

  • Key: DMN12-216
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Goldman Sachs ( Octavian Patrascoiu)
  • Summary:

    According to the ItemDefinition specification, an ItemDefinition can be defined in two ways:

    • reference to a built-in or imported typeRef
    • composition of ItemDefinition via itemComponents

    According to the metamodel in Figure 7.6 and Table 23 typeRef is optional and itemComponent has [0..*] cardinality.

    That means an ItemDefinition can be defined as

    <itemDefinition id="1234" name="name"/>

    What is the actual semantics of this type? Is it some sort of a root type in a type system?

    To make the semantics more readable and fix some some typos or missing info, I suggest the following:
    1. Add missing cardinality for ItemDefintion.itemComponent in Figure 7.6. (missing info)
    2. In Table 23 change cardinality of typeRef to be [0..1] to match the metamodel (typo).
    3. Add an extra constraint in Table 23 itemComponent row:
    When typeRef is missing, itemComponent has at least one ItemDefinition.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:13 GMT
  • Disposition: Resolved — DMN 1.2
  • Disposition Summary:

    Improve type checking semantics

    see attached word doc v8

  • Updated: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 14:17 GMT
  • Attachments: