Sometime between Fuji and Madrid, probably closer to Fuji, ServiceNow quietly changed how the Dictionary Entries were populated in the CMDB, introducing the concept of "cloned descendant elements". With cloned descendant elements, there are distinct...
While I know that SDLC Components in CSDM 4.0 are not recommended to be used yet, I do have some doubts about the currently proposed design:
1. If a Business Application contains SDLC components, and an Application Service is an instance of a Busi...
I understand that the parent field on Service Offering should be filled in with the Technical or Business Service according to CSDM, and that Business Services themselves should not reference other Business Services as a parent. However, there may b...
In CSDM 4.0 the Business Application is broken down into individual SDLC Components. However, component breakdown of a business application is by nature version-specific, whereas business applications themselves are version-agnostic. Is there a met...
In recent versions of ServiceNow, they have introduced the Parent Category field on the Model Category table, but is unclear to me what the intended use of this is, both how it's supposed to be used and why it was added.
At face value, I could interp...
IMO, the Application Category and Category Group are more akin to a business function. There is likely to be an overlap with Service Taxonomy, which you can look to TBM as an example of for standardization, but keep in mind that it has more of a "se...
In my opinion, what this points to is a fundamental gap in the CMDB, which is that there is not a separate Display Name field. Unless you customize the CMDB with additional fields and business logic, you are basically required to treat the CI Name f...
If you selected the option to keep the service in sync, then it created a Calculated Application Service, which means it will use the CI relationships and only the CI relationships to determine the entry points, and it will always include up to the n...
I haven't done it myself but in theory you should be able to devise a Script Include to help you filter based on Principal Class without having to add a separate field to do this. So in your inclusion filter you would have a condition like Class -> ...
Yeah I just got that they are promoting some "product" here. What it must be like to feel like your big win for the day was posting some spam on a public forum and reeling in some web traffic. Gonna go build a cool scoped app now.