...
That said, to eliminate any confusion that could arise when ONAP community members try to access the official documentation, ArchNav as a parallel option would not be the ideal solution. However, the functionalities of the ArchNav can be more useful to the opensource community as an alternative to quick navigation and access to formal and development project information. Case in point, the ArchNav platform would be an ideal entry point for the development wiki where developers seeking to navigate the unstructured wiki would be presented with an interactive image-based layer that directs them to the projects development wiki in a single click. To facilitate something like this it would really be best to have ArchNav as an open-source project with the appropriate governance applied to attract the appropriate maintainers and contributors.
Ultimately any documentation model should fit seamlessly into the existing support model and infrastructure for the documentation itself. As such managing, all of the content in the documentation repo in a form that does not require a programming background seems most appropriate to ensure maintainability.
Conclusion
The point here was to highlight the functionality and features that the two tools offer to the end-user. With an objective for providing quick navigation to the documentation based on visual presentation, it would be ideal to have the image-based navigation implemented within the official documentation. Having the application of image navigation within the documentation will ensure that the entry point to the official documentation remains unchanged hence providing a consistent and improved user experience unlike having community members access the documentation through a third-party application. This despite solving the commonly shared problem which is the lack of a simple and intuitive way for accessing the documentation, would bring more confusion of duplicity.
...