${taskforce.name} Avatar
  1. OMG Task Force

Decision Model and Notation 1.4 RTF — Closed Issues

  • Key: DMN14
  • Issues Count: 2
Open Closed All
Issues resolved by a task force and approved by Board

Issues Descriptions

Underspecified when ranges may include a qualified name for the endpoint, which resolves to null

  • Key: DMN14-197
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Red Hat ( Matteo Mortari)
  • Summary:

    It is underspecified when the ranges may include a qualified name for the endpoint, which resolves to null.

    This was identified by Greg McCreath and Octavian Patrascoiu during TCK contributions.

    Ranges' Endpoints can be either a literal or a qualified name. If the qualified name resolves to null, and the endpoint inclusivity flag is false, it is semantically equivalent to the case of single-endpoint-range. This leads to ambiguity in Table 55: Semantics of decision table syntax

    This also requires the typo fix in https://issues.omg.org/browse/INBOX-1337

    Example

    With reference to examples in Table 42: Examples of range properties values

    Instead of (1..10]
    do consider (x..10]
    if x resolves to null
    then this is semantically equivalent to <=10.

    However, Table 55, row 9, cites:

    e1 in (e2..e3] is equivalent to e1 > e2 and e1<=e3
    
    // exercise by hand..
    e1 in (x..10] is equivalent to e1 > x and e1<=10
    // if x resolves to null..
    e1 in (null..10] is equivalent to e1 > null and e1<=10
    e1 > null and e1<=10
    

    which is NOT equivalent to e1<=10, hence the ambiguity.

  • Reported: DMN 1.3 — Sun, 5 Sep 2021 07:18 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — DMN 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:54 GMT

No way to show relative multiplicity of decisions and their information requirements

  • Key: DMN14-153
  • Status: closed  
  • Source: Decision Management Solutions ( James Taylor)
  • Summary:

    Item Definitions are hierarchical so the top level one in an Input Data or a Decision might not be a collection while one or more of those contained are. This means that there may be a collection to process even if the Input Data or Decision is not marked as a collection (see DMN14-123 for this separate issue). It should be possible to show both "fan in" where multiple instances of the source of the requirement are used by a single instance of a decision and "fan-out" when the source of requirement contains a collection which will be processed one at a time by the decision.

  • Reported: DMN 1.3 — Wed, 24 Feb 2021 05:36 GMT
  • Disposition: Deferred — DMN 1.4
  • Disposition Summary:

    This Issue was not resolved in this Task Force and was automatically deferred to the next Task Force

  • Updated: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 21:12 GMT
  • Attachments: