CSDM v5 - change in relationship type between Business Application and Application Service?

[Jenna2]

Hi all,

Having reviewed the v5 draft, particularly "relationships in CSDM" section, it appears to suggest that the relationship type between Business Application and Application Service has changed between v4 and v5.

v4 - the relationship was consumes/consumed by

v5 - suggest the relationship is uses/used by

There is also text underneath the diagram which reads:

".....If these relationships are not used (ex. Business Application “consumes”
Application Service) then functionality such as the Technology Portfolio Management risk assessment
will not function.... ". This text suggests that relationship type should be consumes??

Does anyone know whether this is an error in the v5 draft, or whether a conscious decision has been made to amend the relationship type?

[harshad_suranka]

This does seems to be conscious decision as found in official CSDM V5 whitepaper. 

https://www.servicenow.com/community/common-service-data-model/csdm-5-finally-get-the-csdm-5-white-p... 

I think this is a result of introduction of Service instance and expansion beyond Application Services. e.g. Data and AI Service Instance, Operational Process Service Instance, Facility Service Instance, Connection Service Instance, Network Service instance.

However it seems to be a dotted line to continue using Consumes :: Consumed by relationship  type for Application services as the critical dependency with Technology Portfolio Management. 

Requesting Mark Castoe @mcastoe to provide some insights to validate this understanding from Enterprise Architecture perspective.

[Bobby Campbell]

I believe that Business Application uses Service Instance is a typo in the CSDM v5 white paper. 

Why? The updated CSDM Data Model Examples Powerpoint deck from Now Create shows these relationships on slides 6 & 7:

Business Application uses Information Object

Business Application consumes Service Instance

Then the "consumes" relationship is duplicated on all subsequent slides beginning with 14.  "Uses" isn't found anywhere else in the deck.  So it's easier to think about 1-2 typos vs. a couple dozen others.  Maybe @Mark Bodman or other SME can weigh in before we get too far down this road.