Hi team - I have been curious if the business glossary UI additions would also include an opinionated way on how to propose / edit / and link glossary items. Some of the challenges we face aren't necessarily with the current tool today - but with how we should define our SOP for term addition and term evolution - etc. It would be very cool if we could get some version control / approval features on business glossary terms - not sure if this is something that is included with the UI improvements - but thought I'd ask the group here on their thoughts. And 100% we could use git - and likely will to start - but to be successful almost every company is going to need some kind of abstraction to enable oftentimes non technical glossary creators to manage these additions, enforce consensus on newly proposed terms, ensure that data dictionary linking can only be done by certain technical users. Our current plan is acting as a middle man in these updates which I imagine isn't a unique requirement to adopting datahub.

I love the idea of a version controlled Glossary, I generally find glossaries in something like a Confluence page or Sharepoint. An organized process for submitting glossary entries and working on bringing together consensus on shared meanings across different domains/teams would be amazing.

I do to! I really want something asynchronous here - I think it would be very valuable when we think about measures to govern those definitions.

It appears to me that maybe this hasnt taken hold in the env. I've worked in -- teams will define their own glossaries and then at some point somebody will merge and consolidate them for an enterprise-wide glossary. But, if we want to really take the idea of catalogs and glossaries to the next level then figuring out a tenable solution to sharing our understandings and negotiating them would be helpful.

I think those efforts are similar - but I don't think that is because it is the preferred way vs. the current only way. If there was the ability to have "in development" definitions, teams would start using datahub day 0. I also think it eliminates a lot of the middle man work data teams often need to do cross team resolving naming conflicts - there is an opportunity for these issues to flagged during development - and fully enabling owning domains to resolves those issues on their own. I think this gets us to being much for self serve - which is something I want metadata management to strive to offer.