It's hard enough explaining the difference between a "Service" Instance (I really wish they would rename this to application instance) and Application Service. And to me, this makes sense because an application service is a type of an instance record (but it really isn't) but to use labels and then mix it up in the diagrams is confusing.
Taking it at face value, it seems that in one diagram it's saying that business applications have a relationship with service instance and in the other diagram it's saying that business applications have a relationship with application service. Consistent labeling is required when dealing with less technical or even technical people that aren't experienced in this space. To them this says two completely different things.
However, if you look at the service instance table you will see all of the different types of application services. Having to go through that explanation and demonstration doesn't always help, sometimes it confuses them even more. Maybe show it as service instance / application service.
But to my previous gripe in a previous post, when we say service instance, aren't we actually talking about an application instance? Why not just call it that? It's an instance of the deployed business application. Why are we trying to force the word "service" on something that is better labeled application?
Now that I have an instance (full application deployed), that application could have services. Those application services are part of that instance so they should be related to the instance record.
