Forum Discussion
Data Product Owner and Contacts should be separate fields
Currently, the 'contacts' field under a data product has a 1 on 1 relationship with the 'data product owner' field. It is not possible to add 'contacts' seperately.
I believe this does not make sense for most organizations. For example, our data products have one owner, and multiple contacts (e.g. data stewards, data experts). That's how our governance works. We are not going to add people to the 'data product owner' field that are no data owners, just to show them in contacts.
Also, why would you have two fields that basically do the same? Clicking on 'data product owner' already gives me the information for 'contacts'.
Please let us add contacts here, that are not the data product owner.
6 Replies
I second this. It's even more confusing if you have separate contacts on data asset level as well, like is the case now. Although I understand the difference between physical data assets and business concepts, it's hard to explain to my customers.
NickDoughtyMicrosoft
The intent of the single owner is to provide a simpler accountability method for everything in Purview. Ensuring that the owner is on every concept and the different levels and types of ownership will help to segment their expertise. We are adding custom attributes in the coming months (MS-Purview-Data-Governance-Roadmap-detailed.pdf) which will enable adding additional custom roles and names for those that should be contacted for specific questions. As we look to enhance the collaboration features within Purview we can look to provide specific roles based on how they would interact with others and the concepts they are a part of in the catalog.
If it remains this way, while adding custom fields, it will become confusing for users. We will then have:
- Data product owner
- Contact (which is the data product owner)
- A custom contact attribute (which is the actual contact)
While I appreciate the reply, I stand my ground. Data Product Owner and Contact should not have this one on one relationship.
I completely agree. Great point!
To further add to this: Data Assets already have a separate "owner" and "expert" field. That's how it should be.
A feature request with ID: 2890 has been raised.
