We’re currently utilizing relationship mapping as a feature to monitor various services. Overall, it’s actually a really awesome experience. We’ve just come across a couple of confusing relationship types that feel they could be improved upon.
1. Backed up by/Backed up by
The first of these two is the “Backed Up by” relationship type. Surely this should be similar to the “Uses/Used by” relationship type, providing a “Backed Up by/Backs up” naming scheme for better clarity.
2. Uses/Owned by
This one also feels a bit off. Surely this should be “Owns/Owned By” rather than “Uses”, as this terminology is used in multiple other relationships and could be pretty unclear.
These are just a couple of minor improvements that would increase the clarity of the relationship types. I also don’t know if it would be possible, but the possibility to edit the default relationships could also be helpful, in case a company has specific terminology they wanted to use rather than the default. This might not be possible, but is just an extra idea.
