Collibra Community

Tired of clicking through endless pages or complex diagrams just to understand how your data assets really connect? That's why we're excited to introduce Derived Relations ! This powerful new capability automatically discovers and visualizes the "multi-hop" relationships within your Collibra knowledge graph. See the complete context, understand the true impact of changes, and supercharge your data discovery. Ready to connect the dots in a whole new way? Get an early look at this game-changing feature. Sign up now for our private preview: https://preview.collibra.com/key/derived-relations

Hieveryone I am running a Collibra DGC/DIC environment and am constantly struggling with peculiar challenges due to some rather Collibra-specific roles, permissions, and licensing constraints. It’s not difficult to understand how roles, permissions, and associated licenses work in Collibra DGC/DIC. However, how to utilize them effectively - how to design and implement an authorization concept that, on one hand, makes the most of the available licenses, and on the other hand, reduces manual role assignment, labor, and effort to an absolute minimum - is the real challenge. I’m looking for Collibra DGC/DIC administrators who have implemented their own authorization concepts, use the one provided by Collibra, or apply a mixture of both, and are willing to share their experiences and insights. The goal is to learn from each other how to get the most out of our available licenses with the least amount of effort. Possible discussion topics: How do you keep Standard/Creator license usage - e.g., with the resource role Owner - under control? Do you use Collibra’s out-of-the-box roles, modify them, or create your own entirely? What are your experiences with each approach? Do you substitute actions that require Standard/Contributor/Creator licensed permissions with workflows to save licenses? Or have you found alternative solutions? How do you handle the ability of many resource roles to assign responsibilities from a compliance and audit perspective? ... I’m looking forward to reading your thoughts and to an insightful discussion. Kind regards, Frank

Hello everyone, Does anyone know of a way I can make a mass change to the names of my views throughout Collibra? I currently have two views, one for business and one for technical, but I want to rename them to better reflect, and I don't want to go into every catalog to change the view name individually.

Hi All, I am trying to export all the data classes that are present in the Stewardship > Data Classifications. I do not see an option to export the data classes into a spreadsheet.  Kindly could you please help me assist me on how we can export the data classes into excel spreadsheet. 

Dear all, I am attempting to get Collibra Edge detect new schemas in datasource and import into Collibra using the Synchronize metadata feature but it only refreshes existing imported schemas without adding the new ones in datasource. Has anyone tried this?

Anyone else testing the new MCP Server - CHIP ? It has promise, I am looking forward to future releases which will offer more capabilities.

What's the deal with the monthly newsletter, is it still produced? Last one I saw was July/August 2024

I'm trying to follow the recommended "cursor pagination" approach outlined here: Page the results However, I cannot get the GREATER filter to work for asset ID like in the example and no results get returned. The results are ordered by assetId ASC as described and I'm just retrieving one asset to start with for testing. There are many thousands of assets in the domain but when I get the following behaviour: When I run WITHOUT the filter and the ordering in place, I get one asset with the ID below. When I run WITH the GREATER filter and the ordering in place, I get no results. If I change the GREATER to EQUALS I get the same asset returned so I think the syntax must be ok. I've put an example below. Has anyone got this type of pagination working please? "Order": [ { "Field": { "name": "assetId", "order": "ASC" } } ], "Filter": { "Field": { "name": "assetId", "operator": "GREATER", "value": "018e63ae-0d25-78aa-a242-732221e572b2" } }

Hey all, Currently, Collibra provides a mechanism to convey a Certification Level associated with an asset, but it's rather limited: an asset is either certified or not. Certification is a good thing: it conveys to the viewer of an asset that there is a certain level of trustability associated with it. But I've found that through the lifecycle of an asset, it's a little more common to want to have levels of certification. One might have, for example, Uncertified -> Bronze -> Silver -> Gold levels of certification. Or maybe something more descriptive based on thew Asset Type, such as Cataloged -> Documented -> Traceable -> Monitored Quality. I've considered a number of ways in which this could be implemented, but each make compromises. The biggest compromise is usually around the visibility and validation of characteristics that are necessary only at higher levels of certification. At lower levels, they are unnecessary — or even noisy. But here are some ideas so far: Certification Level as an Attribute This is a simple solution, and doesn't get in the way of Report ingestion. But complicates the UX and Validation Rule writing, and doesn't have the type/status level of visibility. Certification Level as a Status Similar to the Attribute solution. But this can — depending on your asset lifecycle — effectively call for an entirely new set of statuses during the revision and up-cert'ing of assets. Certification Level using Asset Subtypes One might have a Power BI Report Asset Type, with subtypes of Power BI Report - Bronze , Power BI Report - Silver , Power BI Report - Gold . This works very well for Validation and automated guidance for asset owners and SMEs, and is quite visible to viewers of these reports. There is likely a challenge were assets are integrated, as the current Lineage ingestion mechanism always reverts the Asset Type to the Power BI Report Asset Type on ingestion. This is also more difficult to scale if numerous Asset Types are to have multiple levels. Certification Level through Scopes One could implement this also through the use of Scopes, but this is dependent on the assets living in very specific domains. Ingestion might again be a problem, and this is a non starter for most scenarios, where governance responsibilities are established at the Domain and Community levels. What do you think about the above ideas? Are there other ways to approach this? Are there Collibra product developments in this area, or in areas of lifecycles or traits that might lend themselves to a better solution? What do you do to convey the maturity and trust of assets within your organization's platform? I'd love to hear from people on this one!

Hi everyone, I’d like to propose a feature improvement for our tagging system. Right now, tags are entered manually, which can lead to duplicates, misspellings, and variations of the same concept. This makes it harder to search for posts and to keep the forum organized. We see a need for the tags to be more in control from Admin point of view, and that is important to avoid chaos. I know we can create the Custom attribute with fixed values, but then we would move away from Collibra out of the box solution, and that I'm not a fan of. :) Feature Request: Please add a fixed dropdown list of predefined tags that users can select from when creating or editing a post. Why this would help: Ensures consistent and standardized tagging Prevents tag duplication and spelling errors Makes searching and filtering more reliable Reduces moderation overhead Helps new users understand the expected categories Optional Enhancements: Allow moderators/admins to manage the list of approved tags Include an “Other” option if needed, but ideally with review before it becomes a permanent tag If others agree, please add your support or suggestions below. Thanks!