Hi everyone, I have learnt through my different experiences that an enterprise Data Office may at times request a different naming of specific asset types or characteristics. For the most part, I like to introduce Collibra as a solution with its unique semantic, but sometimes the request makes sense, as in an asset type name not completely reflecting how the enterprise-defined documentation architecture is defined. As an example, if someone requests the documentation of specific Business-level quality requirements, renaming Business Rule as "Business Requirement" could make sense if this is how the enterprise documentation architecture is defined. (The example may not be perfect, but I hope you understood what I meant to say) So far, I have been responding to kind of case by either creating a new child asset type or renaming the asset type in question. However, as Collibra Resource pages often lack transparency on how some parts of the OOTB configuration may be related to specific functionalities, either response may also lead to some negative impacts in the future. Now, for the last few days, I have also been wondering if the usage of the language configuration could allow me to implement some kind of "fake renaming" without actually changing how a resource is configured, but I will have to check the impacts before going further on this topic. Anyway, how does everyone manage this kind of request ? Thank you for reading !
