Intended use of Relationship Types

Rob Mollee
Tera Contributor

I'm looking for any documentation on the intended use of Suggested Relationships.

With the introduction of CSDM, we now have information available to us on the use of Relationships. There is a section on it in the CSDM Whitepaper:find_real_file.png

However, this overview for obvious reasons only shows a specific set of 'Suggested Relationships' (in the community I have even seen them referred to as 'prescribed').

But I'm looking specifically for documentation on intended use of suggested relationships in other areas. Specifically, (but not limited to), I would like more information on the use of the "Exchanges data with" relationships: I can imagine that this relationship can be used between to 'technical' CI's, for example between a Server and Network Gear, but I can also image that data is exchanged between two Applications or Application Services, or a mix of those... 
I can see real value add in the last 2 examples, and tests show me that in Related Items and dependency views this can provide real benefits, even without Service Mapping implemented.

But... I really would like to know in which cases, or rather between which CI's, a relation is intended to be used. Is there any information available on this, or can ServiceNow provide this information is some form? 

4 REPLIES 4

emir
ServiceNow Employee
ServiceNow Employee

I have been told it's being worked on, but no ETA.

Try this:

Open a Class in CI Class Manager. Once there, review the Suggested Relationships and All Relationship Rules tabs. It's not exactly what you're looking for but it does provide some CMDB_REL_TYPEs usage guide.

Rob Mollee
Tera Contributor

Hi Emir, 

Thanks for you response; Yes, I am aware of this, but like you state, it will give me some guidance, but it's not exactly what I'm looking for... 

In my example, using the method you outlined, I can see only the 'Exchanges Data with' relationship between a server and network gear, but it does not tell me what the relationship itself covers, in terms of usage of this relationship type... 

In this case, I would assume that this relationship, given it's restricted use, is intended only for use between Servers and Network equipment, so the intended use would then be to describe that data flows between technical components..

But what it doesn't tell me is whether we could use the same relationship between 2 applications, or between an Application Service and an Application, for instance...

So, to wrap up: it would really help me - and probably others - to have guidance where a relationship should be used, and more specific, where not to be used...

I have seen some strange stuff, such as Business Application Instantiates Application... I personally cannot imagine that that would be correct use of a relationship, but I currently lack the information to confirm or deny that opinion...

I hope the information does indeed become available soon.. 

Thanks again! 

emir
ServiceNow Employee
ServiceNow Employee

Hi Rob, great feedback there. I agree with you and am also pushing internally that we do publish a best practice guide.

Today, what it really means though, is that if the relationship does not exist on the Suggested Relationship tab, it should not be used by that class. I am not sure we explicitly state that though.

In your example, Application Service and Application should use Depends On relationship as you have found it in the CSDM white-paper. That same relationship is also suggested on the Suggested Relationship tab today. This is important because out of the box features utilize the relationships as needed/designed in the product.

Knowing of where NOT to use it, is also very important as you have stated above.

Do you mind submitting an idea for this topic? The product management team prioritizes feedback from the community and maybe with enough upvotes this will happen sooner than later.

I will update this post when I have any news.

Cheers!

emir

Rob Mollee
Tera Contributor

Hi Emir, 

I have just submitted an Idea as you suggested; Please see Idea;

Thanks again!

Best regards, Rob