Figure 10 on page 25 with text "The encapsulated decisions are therefore

"

Figure 11 on page 26 with text "The encapsulated decisions for this services are

".

Table 20 on page 56:

• "outputDecisions: This attribute lists the instances of Decision required to be output by this DecisionService".
• "encapsulatedDecisions: If present, this attribute lists the instances of Decision to be encapsulated in this DecisionService".

For us it is unclear what decisions should be stored in the DMN model as encapsulated decisions. Must the output decisions also be included in the list of encapsulated decisions (as stated on page 25, 26)? Or does the list of encapsulated decisions only hold the decisions contained in the lower compartment of a decision service (as mentioned on 56 since encapsulatedDecisions seems to be optional)?

Figure 10 on page 25 with text "The encapsulated decisions are therefore

"

Figure 11 on page 26 with text "The encapsulated decisions for this services are

".

Table 20 on page 56:

• "outputDecisions: This attribute lists the instances of Decision required to be output by this DecisionService".
• "encapsulatedDecisions: If present, this attribute lists the instances of Decision to be encapsulated in this DecisionService".

For us it is unclear what decisions should be stored in the DMN model as encapsulated decisions. Must the output decisions also be included in the list of encapsulated decisions (as stated on page 25, 26)? Or does the list of encapsulated decisions only hold the decisions contained in the lower compartment of a decision service (as mentioned on 56 since encapsulatedDecisions seems to be optional)?

The notion of a 'type' or ItemDefinition is in the metamodel (with some pending issues) and in the semantics and concepts, but little is in the notation. Thus, we have notation that allows you to execute an expression with actual arguments, but no notation to allow validation based on type information without actual values.

We have most of the pieces, so it should not be difficult. E.g., individual values can be number, string, date and time, etc. We can allow numeric ranges using our unary tests, e.g. '>0', '[10..30)', etc. We can allow LOVs using "abc", "def", "ghi". These can be 'simple items', and we can also define structures using something similar to boxed contexts.

The notion of a 'type' or ItemDefinition is in the metamodel (with some pending issues) and in the semantics and concepts, but little is in the notation. Thus, we have notation that allows you to execute an expression with actual arguments, but no notation to allow validation based on type information without actual values.

We have most of the pieces, so it should not be difficult. E.g., individual values can be number, string, date and time, etc. We can allow numeric ranges using our unary tests, e.g. '>0', '[10..30)', etc. We can allow LOVs using "abc", "def", "ghi". These can be 'simple items', and we can also define structures using something similar to boxed contexts.

FEEL function definitions are defined as lexical closures, which simply means that names in the function body must be in scope, and that scope includes the function parameters and, just like any other decision logic, it includes the information requirements and the knowledge requirements. This is very handy. For example, it allows the logic of a BKM to reference 100 Input Data items by name, without requiring that each invocation pass in 100 parameter bindings.

In order for this to work, the BKM would model 100 Information Requirements on the 100 Input Data items, instead of modeling them as parameters. The boxed invocations would not have 100 rows of repetitive binding information. We must extend the MM and Table 2 to allow a BKM to have information requirements.

10.3.2.9.2 says "The global context is a context provided for convenience and 'pre-compilation'. Any number of expressions can be named and represented in a FEEL context m. The syntactic description m of this context can be evaluated once, that is, mapped to the FEEL domain as m, and then re-used to evaluate many expressions." For example, you might want to put a Relation used as a multi-dimensional constant in the global context. Or you might want to put a reusable function definition in the global context. Currently the xsd does not have globals. All expressions are bound to a specific drgElement, not global. The Import element probably needs to be modified to support this also.

FEEL function definitions are defined as lexical closures, which simply means that names in the function body must be in scope, and that scope includes the function parameters and, just like any other decision logic, it includes the information requirements and the knowledge requirements. This is very handy. For example, it allows the logic of a BKM to reference 100 Input Data items by name, without requiring that each invocation pass in 100 parameter bindings.

In order for this to work, the BKM would model 100 Information Requirements on the 100 Input Data items, instead of modeling them as parameters. The boxed invocations would not have 100 rows of repetitive binding information. We must extend the MM and Table 2 to allow a BKM to have information requirements.

10.3.2.9.2 says "The global context is a context provided for convenience and 'pre-compilation'. Any number of expressions can be named and represented in a FEEL context m. The syntactic description m of this context can be evaluated once, that is, mapped to the FEEL domain as m, and then re-used to evaluate many expressions." For example, you might want to put a Relation used as a multi-dimensional constant in the global context. Or you might want to put a reusable function definition in the global context. Currently the xsd does not have globals. All expressions are bound to a specific drgElement, not global. The Import element probably needs to be modified to support this also.

in typographic literals, italics are strings and bold italics are date literals, but in 10.3, italics are feel syntactic elements and bold are semantic elements. Better to have different notations

in typographic literals, italics are strings and bold italics are date literals, but in 10.3, italics are feel syntactic elements and bold are semantic elements. Better to have different notations

In XSD, business context pointers are duplicated in both directions. E.g. decisionOwner and decisionMaker point to organizationalUnit, which in turns has pointers back the other way. This duplication adds no new information, just potential for internal inconsistency. I suggest omitting one of these directions; the other one is easily extracted from the serialization by XPATH.

In XSD, business context pointers are duplicated in both directions. E.g. decisionOwner and decisionMaker point to organizationalUnit, which in turns has pointers back the other way. This duplication adds no new information, just potential for internal inconsistency. I suggest omitting one of these directions; the other one is easily extracted from the serialization by XPATH.