# Seeking Feedback – Microsoft Purview Governance Domain Metamodel

I've been working on a proposed metamodel for some time to help organisations decide how to structure Governance Domains within Microsoft Purview and would appreciate feedback from others who have implemented Purview at scale.

The intention is not to prescribe a single approach, but to describe several governance patterns that seem to emerge in practice.

Some additional assumptions I've made:

* Numeric prefixes such as `01.01.01` help maintain sort order and readability.

* Standardising on three levels appears easier to manage, although Purview supports five levels.

* Microsoft guidance suggests keeping Governance Domains to approximately 200.

* Governance Domains themselves are relatively flexible and can be renamed or repositioned within the hierarchy.

* Data Products currently appear to be bound to the Governance Domain in which they are created and cannot presently be reassigned to another Governance Domain, making early design decisions more important.

I'm interested in hearing from organisations already using Governance Domains in production.

A few questions for discussion:

Have you adopted one of these patterns, or a hybrid approach?

Are there Governance Domain types missing from this metamodel?

 Is the recommendation of standardising on three hierarchy levels sensible, or have you found deeper structures manageable?

Are there any Microsoft best practices, roadmap items or implementation experiences that would suggest a different approach?

I've attached an infographic illustrating the proposed metamodel and would welcome any thoughts, criticism or lessons learned from real-world implementations.