Decision Model and Notation Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Decision Model and Notation — Open Issues

  • Acronym: DMN
  • Issues Count: 11
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Descriptions

Decision Logic Examples

  • Key: DMN13-2
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Bruce Silver Associates ( Bruce Silver)
  • Summary:

    DMN 1.1 should provide examples of all types of decision model allowed by the standard, both graphically (DRD and decision table, where appropriate) and XML serialization. Currently missing:
    1. decision tables with an expression (more than a name) in inputExpression and outputExpression.
    2. decision tables with inputEntry or outputEntry referencing a "name" as defined by S-FEEL, i.e. not just a literal.
    3. DRD and decision table involving what Vanthienen calls "action subtables". All existing examples are "condition subtables".
    4. Serialization of crosstab format tables.
    5. Representation of literal values vs names in serialization.
    6. Representation of PMML and FEEL in the serialization.

  • Reported: DMN 1.0 — Sun, 12 Apr 2015 15:39 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:48 GMT

Need group artifact in DRD, metamodel, and XSD


No notation for ItemDefinition

  • Key: DMN13-4
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Oracle ( Gary Hallmark)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DMN 1.0 — Thu, 4 Jun 2015 06:28 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:31 GMT

BigDecimal is not the only mapping of number to Java

  • Key: DMN13-1
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Thematix Partners LLC ( Edward Barkmeyer)
  • Summary:

    Clause 10.3.2.9 shows FEEL number values as mapped to XML decimal, integer, and double, but the only mapping to Java is to BigDecimal. The appropriate mapping to Java, like the appropriate mapping to XML, depends on the range and intent of the data element. BigDecimal is rarely used for anything but currency. Java int and double are much more likely to be appropriate for most data items. The mapping of number to Java should be just as flexible as the mapping to XML and PMML.

  • Reported: DMN 1.0 — Wed, 9 Jul 2014 21:23 GMT
  • Updated: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:14 GMT

Should encapsulated decisions of a decision service include output decisions?

  • Key: DMN13-22
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

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

    {Decision 1, Decision 2}

    "

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

    {Decision 1}

    ".

    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)?

  • Reported: DMN 1.0 — Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:49 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:44 GMT

LiteralExpression and textual expression seem to mean the same thing, need to use the same term

  • Key: DMN13-9
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Oracle ( Gary Hallmark)
  • Summary:

    literal expression is used in MM, and textual expression is used in grammar. Let's use 1 consistently, but check that they are really the same concept.

  • Reported: DMN 1.0 — Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:30 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 22:14 GMT

XSD: global context

  • Key: DMN13-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Bruce Silver Associates ( Bruce Silver)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DMN 1.0 — Sun, 31 May 2015 16:35 GMT
  • Updated: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 22:11 GMT

Business Knowledge Model can have Information Requirements

  • Key: DMN13-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Oracle ( Gary Hallmark)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DMN 1.0 — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:30 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 22:51 GMT

italics and bold used for both typographic literal notation and FEEL semantic exposition

  • Key: DMN13-5
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Oracle ( Gary Hallmark)
  • Summary:

    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

  • Reported: DMN 1.0 — Thu, 3 Sep 2015 15:58 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 22:22 GMT

No item definition for function definition

  • Key: DMN13-7
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Oracle ( Gary Hallmark)
  • Summary:

    If a function definition is the value expression of an information item, then that information item should have an item definition that gives the type of the function definition. E.g., the type of a function of two numeric arguments that returns their sum should be something like function(number, number) returns number but we have no way to express such an item definition

  • Reported: DMN 1.0 — Thu, 6 Aug 2015 22:40 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 22:20 GMT

Business Context links go both ways

  • Key: DMN13-3
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Bruce Silver Associates ( Bruce Silver)
  • Summary:

    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.

  • Reported: DMN 1.0 — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:30 GMT
  • Updated: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 21:47 GMT