Source: Goldman Sachs ( Octavian Patrascoiu)
The definition of Semantic Domains / Types in 10.3.2 does not contain:
- a metamodel
- relationships between various types
I propose adding a metamodel and the following two relationship:
1. Conforms To
A semantic domain T1 conforms to a semantic domain T2 when an instance of T1 can be substituted at each place where an instance of T2 is expected.
2. Equivalent To
A semantic domain T1 is equivalent to a domain T2 iff they have the same name and the corresponding embedded semantic domains are equivalent. (e.g. List<Number> is equivalent only to List<Number> not List <String>).
The above relationships should be defined via tables, similar to the ones used to describe the semantics of logic operators (page 119 Table 38).
Reported: DMN 1.1 — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:38 GMT
Disposition: Closed; No Change — DMN 1.5
Resolved in an earlier version already when we introduced the type lattice.
Updated: Fri, 30 Jun 2023 20:31 GMT
- argo-dmn-types.png 15 kB (image/png)