Decision Model and Notation Avatar
  1. OMG Specification

Decision Model and Notation — Open Issues

  • Acronym: DMN
  • Issues Count: 34
  • Description: Issues not resolved
Open Closed All
Issues not resolved

Issues Summary

Key Issue Reported Fixed Disposition Status
DMN14-42 We need a way to identify current date and time. I propose Now() DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-41 Unspecified conclusion DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-39 need set operations and equality in FEEL DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-37 Collect decision tables DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-35 Metamodel constraints & validation DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-36 FEEL ambiguity DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-38 In section 7.3.1 Expression Meta-Model: there is no table to display the typeRef attribute added by Expression to DMNElement DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-34 Requested additional built-in functions DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-40 notion of arbitrary order conflicts with lack of an unordered collection data type DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-33 Semantic domain mapping for simple expressions DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-32 Improvement of Semantic Domains Specification DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-30 Missing FEEL semantic mapping for grammar rule 2.i - simple positive unary test DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-31 Rule 51.c doesn't support FEEL syntax of list with squary brackets as shown on page 122 DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-28 Can an expression in user defined function body reference a name outside of it's scope? DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-29 Should name declarations in same context fail or overwrite? DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-26 Scope of decision table input/output entries is not well defined in the specification DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-27 How to get FEEL type if evaluation is not an option? DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-25 More Generic Ways to Define Decision Table Properties DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-23 Formally define enumerations and use throughout DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-24 FEEL grammar readbility DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-22 Lexical representation of time string has ambiguous definitons DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-21 Add two new concrete numeric types, make number abstract DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-20 Wrong character in expression for PMT function definition DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-19 Can the same Definitions/namespace be used by more than one model? DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-17 Clarification needed if null is passed as value for optional parameter of built in function DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-16 Introduce a new property "value" for type date, date and time, time, years and months duration, days and time duration DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-18 Improve description of built-in function string() DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-15 No adjustment for last day in month if duration is added/subtracted to date and time value DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-13 Figure 6.15 shows incorrect multiplicity for Decision Service Output Decisions DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-12 Enhancement suggestion: make unary tests first class citizens of the FEEL language DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-9 Change depiction of Input to be harmonized with BPMN and CMMN DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-11 Enhancement suggestion: allow for expressions to be used as "end points" DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-10 Include Test Cases in Decision Model DMN 1.1 open
DMN14-8 Lack of visual notation for processing of / iteration over lists in DRD DMN 1.1 open

Issues Descriptions

We need a way to identify current date and time. I propose Now()

  • Key: DMN14-42
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Trisotech ( Denis Gagne)
  • Summary:

    We need to be able to compare to the current date and time
    e.g.
    Now() as a unitary test
    or
    Now() = a specified date and time

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:54 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Unspecified conclusion

  • Key: DMN14-41
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Decision Management Solutions ( James Taylor)
  • Summary:

    I remember discussions about allowing "-" in conclusions to mark an unspecified conclusion in a decision table. This would allow some of the conclusions in a multiple output decision table to be marked as "unspecified" where there was no output relevant for that conclusion for a specific rule and to allow rules in multi-hit tables to show that a particular combination of conditions had been considered but did not result in anything being added to the result set.
    However the standard as written says that an output entry must adhere to the literal expression grammar, and '-' is not allowed. You have to return some FEEL value, e.g. 0, false, "N/A", null, etc.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 21:41 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

need set operations and equality in FEEL

  • Key: DMN14-39
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Oracle ( Gary Hallmark)
  • Summary:

    some notes toward a proper description:
    FEEL has ordered lists and some set builtins, e.g. distinct values and union. Lacks intersection and equality.

    [1,2] in (1,2,[1,2], 3) is true

    intersect([1,2,3], [3,1,4]) = [1,3]

    set equals([1,1,3], [3,1]) is true
    probably - distinct values([1,1,3]) = distinct values([3,1])
    maybe change to set([1,1,3]) = set([3,1])
    (set needs to both remove dups and return elements in canonical order)
    what is canonical order [null, 0, {}, []]?
    [1,3] = [3,1] is false

    Another option is to add sets to FEEL semantic domain (along with lists, numbers, contexts, ...). And need syntax.

    simpler and more biz friendly proposal - add 'contains any' and 'contains all' as boolean infix operators taking 2 lists as LHS and RHS. And allow these to be added to unary tests w/o a '?'. E.g. 1,2,3 , in (1,2,3) , contains any (1,2,3), contains all (1,2,3). First 2 are what we have now (2nd allowed for symmetry). Last 2 assume input expr is a list (set).

    if we just add set oriented builtins, but no friendlier syntax, this may not solve the biz problem of allowing DTs to process sets in a user friendly way. Too many ()s and ?s

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:35 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Collect decision tables

  • Key: DMN14-37
  • Status: open  
  • Source: FICO ( Alan Fish)
  • Summary:

    (1) The spec says "Collect: returns all hits in arbitrary order. An operator (‘+’, ‘<’, ‘>’, ‘#’) can be added to apply a simple function to the outputs. If no operator is present, the result is the list of all the output entries.". This is confusing - as I understand it if an operator is present a collect hit policy does not return all hits, only the result of the operation.

    (2) The spec should state clearly what result is returned by Collect decision tables when no rules fire. In particular the result of a C+ decision table is not clear, because the result of sum([]) is undefined. I think a case could be made (based on a recursive definition) that the sum of an empty list is zero, which would be a much more useful result from the decision table than null. In general, section 10.3.4.4 restricts the semantics of all list functions to non-empty lists, although some functions have natural and useful results for the empty list e.g. count([])=0, sum([])=0, sublist([],x,y)=[], append([],items)=[items], concatenate([],items)=items, reverse([])=[], union([],items)=[], distinct values([])=[], flatten([])=[].

    (3) Why is the result of C+ defined as "sum of all the distinct outputs" rather than just "sum of all the outputs"? I would say that if three rules fire proposing the value 5, the C+ result should be 15, not 5.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Thu, 13 Oct 2016 08:25 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Metamodel constraints & validation

  • Key: DMN14-35
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Goldman Sachs ( Octavian Patrascoiu)
  • Summary:

    None of the metamodels contain logic constraints. For example, the name of a decision table is the same with the name of the variable defined inside of the decision table tag (invariant at decision table level).

    Ideally these constrains would be used to validate the diagrams before execution (e.g. generating code from Java). Bruce Silver's already covers some of the. We should add them and more in the spec.

    I think the metamodel constraints should be described with OCL – see the UML metamodels. There should be constraints for CL1, CL2 and CL3. It’s very likely the CL3 constraints will be a superset of CL2 constraints.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:45 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

FEEL ambiguity

  • Key: DMN14-36
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Goldman Sachs ( Octavian Patrascoiu)
  • Summary:

    FEEL grammar is ambiguous. Rule 2.i is ambiguous for identifiers like Person, as it can lead to two parse trees, one with QualifiedName the other with Name in it. See rule for simple value.

    Rule 1 is ambiguous as there is an overlap between textual expression and boxed expression. I suggest breaking the grammar in several grammars with a common part. This ambiguity will just go away as soon as we do that.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:41 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

In section 7.3.1 Expression Meta-Model: there is no table to display the typeRef attribute added by Expression to DMNElement

  • Key: DMN14-38
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Trisotech ( Denis Gagne)
  • Summary:

    In section 7.3.1 Expression Meta-Model: there is no table to display the typeRef attribute added by Expression to DMNElement

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Wed, 24 Aug 2016 16:45 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Requested additional built-in functions

  • Key: DMN14-34
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Oracle ( Gary Hallmark)
  • Summary:

    (from Bruce)
    a. String-join(stringList, separatorString)

    b. Format-number(value, formatString), where formatString (to be negotiated) generally follows Excel or xpath, maybe not all the features.

    c. Format-date(value, formatString), format-dateTime(value, formatString)

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Mon, 2 Jan 2017 20:43 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

notion of arbitrary order conflicts with lack of an unordered collection data type

  • Key: DMN14-40
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Signavio GmbH ( Bastian Steinert)
  • Summary:

    Section "8.2.11 Hit policy" describes that hit policy "Collect: returns all hits in arbitrary order". This implies that the order of the results does not have to be deterministic and can also vary among different implementations. However, the standard only supports the notion of 'lists', which do have an order. The comparison of lists is also specified in a way that the order of elements is significant. The issue might get more clear when thinking about testing the interface of decisions. Strictly speaking, it is currently not feasible to define a test against a decision table with hit policy 'collect'. The expected result can only be defined using a list, whose elements do have an order. The operator to compare the 'expected' and the 'actual' result will also take order into account.

    The issue could easily be resolved by replacing 'arbitrary order' with 'rule order'.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 10:11 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Semantic domain mapping for simple expressions

  • Key: DMN14-33
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Goldman Sachs ( Octavian Patrascoiu)
  • Summary:

    The FEEL grammar contains simple expressions as starting terminal

    page 107 6. simple expressions = simple expression ,

    { "," , simple expression }

    ;

    I could not find a mapping to a semantics domain for it. What is the type / domain of "simple expressions"? A list with element type Any or a Tuple Type with several element types?

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Fri, 17 Mar 2017 14:42 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Improvement of Semantic Domains Specification

  • Key: DMN14-32
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Goldman Sachs ( Octavian Patrascoiu)
  • Summary:

    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
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT
  • Attachments:

Missing FEEL semantic mapping for grammar rule 2.i - simple positive unary test

  • Key: DMN14-30
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

    For simple positive unary test(s) there are extra entry points in the FEEL grammar. Therefore why do we need simple positive unary test in grammar rule 2.i. What is the semantic mapping?

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Wed, 3 May 2017 09:11 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Rule 51.c doesn't support FEEL syntax of list with squary brackets as shown on page 122

  • Key: DMN14-31
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

    on page 122 in table 43 in row 2 and 3: "e1 in [e2, e3, ...]"
    on page 109 grammar rule 51.c: expression "in" positive unary test
    on page 109 grammar rule 51.c: expression "in" "(" positive unary tests ")"

    The syntax with square brackets is not allowed by the grammar rules 51.c. Either table 43 or grammar definition should be changed.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Wed, 3 May 2017 08:58 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Can an expression in user defined function body reference a name outside of it's scope?

  • Key: DMN14-28
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

    If an expression in a user defined function body references a name outside of it's scope (for example a parent scope), this scope must be available also during invocation of the function.

    Examples:

    • {f:function() a, a:1, i:f()}

      possible, since name a is still available in local context (scope) during invocation

    • {b:1,f:function() b}

      .f() impossible, since name b is not available outside of the context.

    It would be nice if the semantic mapping and the differentiation between function definition and invocation is clearly specified in the spec. What names can be referenced? Must the scopes also be available during invocation?

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Wed, 3 May 2017 15:24 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Should name declarations in same context fail or overwrite?

  • Key: DMN14-29
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

    As I see the spec doesn't define what should happen if in a context a name should be declared that already exists in the current context. Sample FEEL expression: "for i in [1,2,3], i in [4,5,6] return i * i" Does the second definition of i overwrite the first one or should we return null for the complete "for" expression?

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Wed, 3 May 2017 09:25 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Scope of decision table input/output entries is not well defined in the specification

  • Key: DMN14-26
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Trisotech ( Denis Gagne)
  • Summary:

    While the scope of context entry specifically says to include the previous context entry (section 7.3.1), there is no mention for the scope of input and output entries of decision tables.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Mon, 15 May 2017 17:59 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

How to get FEEL type if evaluation is not an option?

  • Key: DMN14-27
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

    in chapter 10.3.2.10: "Sometimes we do not want to evalutate a FEEL expression e, we just want to know the type of e."

    in table 54: column Applicability defines which row in the table to use, depending on the type of a FEEL expression.

    Table 54 only makes sense if it is not allowed to pre-evaluate the expression e2, since even for a pre-evaluation context entries (for example: "item") must be declared in scope.

    How do we know the type of a FEEL expression if it is not allowed to evaluate it?

    Examples:

    • [1,2,3][min(3,2,1)]
    • {a:function() external {java: {class: "clazz", method signature: "method()"}}, b:[1,2,3][a()]}.b
    • {a: 1, b: a instance of number, c: [1,2,3][b] }
  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Wed, 3 May 2017 14:56 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT


Formally define enumerations and use throughout

  • Key: DMN14-23
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Decision Management Solutions ( James Taylor)
  • Summary:

    Item Definitions can share constraints and these constraints are specified as unary tests. This allows definitions such as requiring a positive number ( >0) or restricting a field to a specific value ("high", "medium", "low").

    However this requires enumerations to be strings and does not allow enumerations to be managed (sorted for instance). In addition, an enumerated list might be used for a set of Information Items but it must be repeated in Decision Tables when columns are meant to be restricted to the list of values.

    DMN should allow for the creation and management of enumerations:

    • Name
    • Description (optional)
    • List of enumerated values (optionally with a sort order)

    These enumerations should be considered symbolic constants, not strings

    FEEL functions should be created to:
    Get the list of of allowed values for a specified enumeration
    Check a value against an enumeration to see if it is an allowed value for that enumeration
    Check the sort order of some specified values in the context of an enumeration

    Decision Tables should be able to reference an enumeration by name in the value list row
    Information Items should be able to be linked to an enumeration

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:12 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

FEEL grammar readbility

  • Key: DMN14-24
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Goldman Sachs ( Octavian Patrascoiu)
  • Summary:

    The grammar contains several sub-grammars each one with its own start non-terminal: expression, simple expressions, unary tests.

    The grammar should be broken in several grammars, and common part to make things more obvious. It will help the CL3 implementation.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Sun, 30 Oct 2016 11:37 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Lexical representation of time string has ambiguous definitons

  • Key: DMN14-22
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

    A lexical time string is defined o page 131 by XML Schema Part 2 Datatypes (for local times and offset times) and by ISO 8601 with the extended form of a local time (for zoned times).

    Unfortunately XML Schema Part 2 and ISO 8601 has different definitions. Therefore it is unclear which of them to use. Or are both of them valid?

    Additionally the user should not have different lexical time string formats for a local time, an offset time or a zoned time.

    The list of ambiguities:

    • ISO 8601 allows a leading "T" character prefix. XML Schema Part 2 does not.
    • ISO 8601 allows optional seconds. In XML Schema Part 2, the seconds are mandatory.
    • ISO 8601 allows decimal fraction for seconds and minutes. XML Schema Part does not allow this.
    • ISO 8601 allows 00:00:00 and 24:00:00 for midnight. XML Schema Part 2 only allows 00:00:00.
    • ISO 8601 allows time offset of hours only. Minutes are optional. XML Schema Part 2 always requires minutes.

    Therefore clarification is needed. Which definitions are valid for FEEL? The stricter XML Schema Part 2 or the more user friendly ISO 8601 spec?

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:24 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Add two new concrete numeric types, make number abstract

  • Key: DMN14-21
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Goldman Sachs ( Octavian Patrascoiu)
  • Summary:

    Currently S-FEEL / FEEL contains only one single numeric type called number that matches the semantics defined in IEEE 754-2008.

    This can lead to some strange constructions, such as
    substring("footbar", 3.67)
    perfect valid in FEEL.

    It also has impact on the performance of the execution (speed).

    Here is my proposal:

    • keep number as an abstract type to backwards compatibility
    • add a new concrete type real/float/decimal that matches the semantics of defined in IEEE 754-2008
    • add a new concrete type integer
    • change the signature of all built-in functions to restrict number to integer when it makes sense (e.g. index in a string and list, length of string. size of list)
    • add a separate paragraph to specify the implicit conversions performed by the FEEL processor when required (e.g. function resolution). For example,
      2 + 4.5 leads to a promotion 2 -> 2.0 that adding it 4.5.

    If we agree in principal all start working on it.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Wed, 6 Dec 2017 13:44 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Wrong character in expression for PMT function definition

  • Key: DMN14-20
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

    The expression of the PMT function contains an invalid character and is therefore not executable. The first minus character is a dash, but shouldn't.

    (amount rate/12) / (1 (1 + rate/12)*-term)

    Fixed:

    (amount rate/12) / (1 - (1 + rate/12)*-term)

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Fri, 2 Feb 2018 10:32 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Can the same Definitions/namespace be used by more than one model?

  • Key: DMN14-19
  • Status: open   Implementation work Blocked
  • Source: Red Hat ( Edson Tirelli)
  • Summary:

    Please clarify if it is possible to have multiple models on the same namespace. For instance:

    <definitions namespace="http://my.company/financeModels" name="Model A" ...

    <definitions namespace="http://my.company/financeModels" name="Model B" ...

    The current text of the specification does not say anything explicitly one way or another, so please clarify that.

    In addition to this, if multiple models can use the same namespace, then the <import> element will require an additional attribute (for instance: modelName) in order to uniquely identify which model should be imported.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Thu, 8 Mar 2018 16:20 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Clarification needed if null is passed as value for optional parameter of built in function

  • Key: DMN14-17
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

    Some built-in functions has optional parameters. Chapter 10.3.4 describes "Whenever a parameter is outside its domain, the result of the built-in is null."

    Should the following call to a built-in function result to null?

    replace("This is a string", "[a-z]", "#", null)
    

    The optional parameter "flags" of the built-in function replace() is null. Parameter domain is string as stated in table 60 on page 133. Null is not in the domain of type string.

    This topic was already discussed in the DMN TCK. We think that the behavior should be the same as the function is called without the optional parameter:

    replace("This is a string", "[a-z]", "#", null) = replace("This is a string", "[a-z]", "#")
    

    Clarification in the specification is appreciated.

    May be we can change the sentence in chapter 10.3.4 on page 130 to: "Whenever a parameter is outside its domain, the result of the built-in is null. If null is passed as value to an optional parameter, the built-in behaves like no value is passed."

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:32 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Introduce a new property "value" for type date, date and time, time, years and months duration, days and time duration

  • Key: DMN14-16
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

    Chapter 10.3.2.3.4 time, 10.3.2.3.5 date, 10.3.2.3.6 date-time, 10.3.2.3.7 days and time duration and chapter 10.3.2.3.8 years and months duration defines each a value function. For date time arithmetic operations it would be useful to have this value available in the FEEL semantic domain. Therefore we suggest to add a new property value that is directly available for values of this type. Return type of the value if always a number.

    Table 53 should be adjusted accordingly.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:57 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Improve description of built-in function string()

  • Key: DMN14-18
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

    The expected output of the built-in function string() should be defined for each type. Otherwise it is unclear what the result for a value, for example of type time, is. Is it the string literal or the full expression with built-in function time()?

    // which FEEL expression is valid?
    string(time("11:00:00")) = "11:00:00"
    string(time("11:00:00")) = "time("11:00:00")"
    

    Recommendation: Introduce a new table that lists example outputs for all types:

    • null -> null
    • boolean -> "true" or "false"
    • string -> "This is a string"
    • number -> "-1.234"
    • date -> "2017-10-11"
    • time -> "11:00:00.123" or "11:00:00.123+02:00" or "11:00:00.123@Europe/Paris"
    • date and time -> "2017-10-11T11:00:00.123" or "2017-10-11T11:00:00.123+02:00" or "2017-10-11T11:00:00.123@Europe/Paris"
    • days and time duration -> "P2DT3H4M5.123S"
    • years and months duration -> "P2Y3M"
    • list -> "[1,2,3]"
    • context -> "{a: true, b: false}"
    • range -> "[1..100]"
    • unary test -> "> 10"
    • function -> null
  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:02 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

No adjustment for last day in month if duration is added/subtracted to date and time value

  • Key: DMN14-15
  • Status: open  
  • Source: ACTICO ( Daniel Thanner)
  • Summary:

    The specification says that the addition/subtraction of a date and time and a years and months duration value is defined as:

    date and time (
       date(e1.year +/– e2.years + floor((e1.month+/– e2.months)/12),
       e1.month +/– e2.months – floor((e1.month +/– e2.months)/12) * 12,
       e1.day), 
       time(e1))
    

    If you apply this expression to the following two values:

    • date and time("2017-08-30T11:00:00Z")
    • duration("P18M")
      you would expect the following results:
    date and time("2017-08-30T11:00:00Z") + duration("P18M")  --> result should be date and time("2019-02-28T11:00:00Z")
    date and time("2017-08-30T11:00:00Z") - duration("P18M")  --> result should be date and time("2016-02-29T11:00:00Z")
    

    If you apply the values to the defined formula, you get:

    date and time (
       date(2017 +/– 1 + floor((8 +/– 6)/12),
       8 +/– 6 – floor((8 +/– 6)/12) * 12,
       30), 
       time("11:00:00Z"))
    

    Addition
    which results for addition into:

    date and time (
       date(2018 + floor(1,1667),
       14 – floor(1,1667) * 12,
       30), 
       time("11:00:00Z"))
    

    which is:

    date and time (date(2019, 2, 30), time("11:00:00Z"))
    

    The adjustment to the last valid day in a month is missing. 30th February is invalid, since February has only 28/29 days.

    Subtraction
    which results for subtraction into:

    date and time (
       date(2016 + floor(0,1667),
       2 – floor(0,1667) * 12,
       30), 
       time("11:00:00Z"))
    

    which is:

    date and time (date(2016, 2, 30), time("11:00:00Z"))
    

    The adjustment to the last valid day in a month is missing. 30th February is invalid, since February has only 28/29 days.

    Recommendation:
    Adjustment to last valid day in month must be added to spec.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Mon, 2 Oct 2017 12:41 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Figure 6.15 shows incorrect multiplicity for Decision Service Output Decisions

  • Key: DMN14-13
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Department of Veterans Affairs ( Stephen White)
  • Summary:

    In Figure 6.15 the multiplicity of output decisions for a decision service is shown as zero to many (0..), but the text below and Table 16 says the that multiplicity is one to many (1..). The figure should be correct to match the text and table.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Fri, 3 Aug 2018 21:19 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Enhancement suggestion: make unary tests first class citizens of the FEEL language

  • Key: DMN14-12
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Red Hat Inc ( Edson Tirelli)
  • Summary:

    This is a suggestion for future versions of the spec:

    Add support for Unary Tests as first class citizens of the FEEL language, in a similar way as ranges and functions already are.

    A unary test is really a “predicate”: a single parameter function that returns a boolean. It is syntax sugar on:

    function ( x ) x in <unary_test>

    FEEL already supports functions as first class citizens, so it makes sense to support Unary Tests. The following two syntaxes would then be equivalent:

    is minor : < 18
    is minor : function( age ) age in < 18

    Invoking unary tests explicitly would be like invoking a function:

    Bob is minor : is minor( bob.age )

    More importantly, it would allow the implementation to actually support passing unary tests as parameters to functions and make the example on page 115 viable:

    decision table (
    outputs: "Applicant Risk Rating",
    input expression list: [Applicant Age, Medical History],
    rule list: [
    [ >60, "good", "Medium" ],
    [ >60, "bad", "High" ],
    [ [25..60], -, "Medium" ],
    [ <25, "good", "Low" ],
    [ <25, "bad", "Medium" ]
    ],
    hit policy: "Unique"
    )

    Unary test syntax is not ambiguous, so supporting it would mean to basically change rule 2 in the grammar to include rules 14 and 17 as possible options. The semantic mapping table on page 116 would also need to include a new FEEL value type: "unary test".

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 01:41 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Change depiction of Input to be harmonized with BPMN and CMMN


Enhancement suggestion: allow for expressions to be used as "end points"

  • Key: DMN14-11
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Red Hat Inc ( Edson Tirelli)
  • Summary:

    This is a suggestion for future revisions of the specification:

    Change the grammar to allow expressions to be used as "end points" on ranges and unary tests. E.g.:

    { Thanksgiving holiday: [ date(“2016-11-24”) .. date(“2016-11-27”) ] }

    This is extremely useful for users that no longer have to create dummy variables in order to use expressions as "end points".

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Tue, 23 Aug 2016 01:32 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT

Include Test Cases in Decision Model

  • Key: DMN14-10
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Oracle ( Gary Hallmark)
  • Summary:

    For interchange of test cases along with a decision model, it would be convenient to define metamodel and xsd elements for a suite of test cases, where a test case contains values for input data and expected values output decisions.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Sat, 28 May 2016 16:25 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT
  • Attachments:

Lack of visual notation for processing of / iteration over lists in DRD

  • Key: DMN14-8
  • Status: open  
  • Source: Signavio GmbH ( Bastian Steinert)
  • Summary:

    The processing of lists of data is fundamental to business decisions. Some kind of multiplicity should be indicated at the DRD level, and iteration should be supported visually at the decision logic level. In spite of the attached figures (meant to provoke discussion), the scope of this issue is limited to "flat" DRDs, that is, no "sub-DRDs" nested inside an outer decision or BKM. DRD proposal should specify what the multiplicity marker or other DRD notation looks like, and where it may appear, e.g. attached to head or tail of a requirement arrow, or inside a decision or BKM shape left of the name, etc.

  • Reported: DMN 1.1 — Wed, 4 May 2016 08:49 GMT
  • Updated: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:51 GMT
  • Attachments: