Why is there no documentation of the intentions of all the relationship types? If you've created a relationship type, it must be for some specific reason so why isn't that expectation shared? What is the purpose of these "generic" relationship types such as this and "depends on"? Depend on it for what, data? I would use receives data from in that case. Don't all networked components "interface" with all others?
I guess a business application wouldn't consume another business application? If I have a business application that all of this functionality (services), but has this group of services, shouldn't that be a child business application that has its own services or "grandchild services" of the "parent" service?
MS Office is a business application that has Excel, Word, etc as child business applications that have their own services. Does Office interfaces Excel which would make Excel interfaced by Office? That doesn't "sound" right. Office consumes Excel sounds right. Maybe Excel should be a business service with the offerings of tables, pivot tables, forms, graphs, charts, etc. It has application services of similar offerings which are consumed by what? A business application by with a similar name "Excel" (or child business application Excel and a parent business application of Office)?
We aren't actually using offerings or properly using application services [yet]. We are trying to get to using application services but we mostly use business services and business applications. However, we're trying to figure out if we should be nesting our business applications but https://docs.servicenow.com/en-US/bundle/tokyo-it-business-management/page/product/application-portf... doesn't seem right.
