Business glossary question: Thanks for the demo and PR. It was great! In the demo video, there was a subtle point about keeping the glossary configuration in a single yaml file vs splitting them into multiple files as long as the tree structure is preserved. This means if the following is the structure in one file

node 1
		> term 1
		> term 2
		node 2
			> term a
			> term b

and if one were to introduce a new node and terms collection at an arbitrary location on the tree the file should be defined like this. Is this a fair assumption?

node 1
		> term 1
		> term 2
		node 2
			node 3
				> term c
				> term d

This did work for me. Wondering if I'm missing something here. This meant that I had to repeat the name and description configs for the nodes. One could write an abstraction to generate the yaml file. Would it make sense to simply have a parent_urn or something like that in the nodes config to make it canonical to attach a node and term collection at any point in the tree? Something like

node 3
				parent_node: node 1.node 2 or simply node 2
				> term c
				> term d

Thanks!

@brave-market-65632: that's a great suggestion. I was imagining that folks would probably split the glossary vertically (all the way from root node down a specific path). But it makes sense to allow splitting at any level in the tree.

parent_node: node1.node2

makes sense to me as an option.

Thank you for the quick response.