Wrong image provided by ServiceNow? How to read the relationships of CSDM tables?

[Suggy]

How to read the relationships of CSDM tables from the image?

(case i) Left CI class + ::rel type on right + right CI Class.

or

(case ii) left CI class + ::rel type on left + right CI Class.

If I consider the 1st case (rel type on right)

Business capability - PROVIDED BY - Business application >>>>>>>>>which is CORRECT

Application - RUNS ON - Infrastructure CIs >>>>>>>>>which is INCORRECT

If I consider the 2nd  case (rel type on left)

Business capability - PROVIDES - Business application >>>>>>>>>which is INCORRECT

Application - RUNS - Infrastructure CIs >>>>>>>>>which is INCORRECT

PS - I can go to CI class manager and see but I cannot do it for classes. To save time, I relied on the official image but

its **bleep** confusing!!!

Is that image wrong or what?

[Jonathan Schnei]

Do you have a filter applied? Else, I am unsure why you cannot see the other classes. 

It would seem the general rule I advised does not hold.. As is mentioned below, it is best to think of it in regular grammatical terms. So the App Runs on Infra. And Infra Runs Apps. 

[Suggy]

@Jonathan Schnei After I installed APM, other classes appeared.

For Apps and infra, one can easily say. but when it comes to other tables, and especially for those who are new to CSDM, it would be really difficult to know the relationships 🙂

[Suggy]

Anyone?

[Sohail Khilji]

HI @Suggy ,

Its about the understanding on verb how ServiceNow has used it. not every time it would fit the relationship in generic terms.

If you look at:

Application Runson :: runs Infra CIs

Here you must read it the below way:

1. Application do run on Infra CIs

2. Infra CIs enables to run Applications on it.

[Suggy]

@Sohail Khilji Relation between Application and Infra is an easy one. Even a first timer can guess the relation between them, but for the rest of the components the relationships are nothing easy to guess/remember in mind. One has to refer the docs/image but relying on that is giving wrong interpretation (the post that I have created here for the same reason)