DMN13 — Allegedly bug in Table Table 40 Examples of equivalence and conformance relations

The DMNv1.2 spec reports these two lines examples:

type([{"id": 1,"name":"Peter", "age": 45}])

type(Decision3)

type(Decision4)

type(Decision3)

However concerning the first referenced line, type1

type([{"id": 1,"name":"Peter", "age": 45}])
     ^
  by following the syntax used in table 39 takes the form of the type:

list<context<"id": number,"name": string, "age": number>>

and type2:

type(Decision3)

  by following the syntax used in table 39 takes the form of the type:

context<"id": number,"name": string, "age": number>

So in the first referenced line it is asserted type1 is Equivalent to type2, but a list and a context are not Equivalent by the rule described in section 10.3.2.9.1 Type Equivalence

Similarly for the second referenced line, type 1:

type(Decision4)

  by following the syntax used in table 39 takes the form of the type:

list<context<"id": number,"name": string, "age": number>>

As for the ItemDefinition with the isCollection="true" which therefore obliges the definition that:

IsCollection: Boolean Setting this flag to true indicates that the actual values defined by this ItemDefinition are collections of allowed values.

So again by the section 10.3.2.9.1 Type Equivalence there are no "iff" rules explicited which would make a LIST Equivalent to a CONTEXT.

Analogous issue for the reported values of Conformance.

Can you kindly verify and clarify if needed, please?

Replace 2 rows in table 40

See attached word doc