<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Three level name space naming standard in Administration &amp; Architecture</title>
    <link>https://community.databricks.com/t5/administration-architecture/three-level-name-space-naming-standard/m-p/166528#M5544</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.databricks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/94868"&gt;@cltj&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is a classic example of how an architecture can become difficult to scale over time. Initially, we onboarded only a few clients and maintained client-specific tables. However, as the number of clients grew, the solution resulted in a large proliferation of tables, increasing maintenance and operational complexity.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To address this, we redesigned the architecture using a metadata-driven framework powered by control/metadata tables. The control/metadata tables store column mappings and transformation rules, while a centralized transactional table stores common attributes along with sequence numbers and source identifiers (Like - sql, excel, datavserse).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This approach significantly improved scalability and maintainability. Onboarding a new client now requires only configuration changes in the metadata layer, without creating additional physical tables. Client-specific views can be exposed at the Gold layer, enabling easy access to curated data while keeping the underlying architecture standardized and scalable.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Naming convention should be like below:&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;department.Usecase.layer&amp;nbsp; =&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;dep.finance.bronze_meta&amp;nbsp; and&amp;nbsp;dep.finance.bronze_transactional&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;dep.finance.silver_meta&amp;nbsp; and&amp;nbsp;dep.finance.silver_transactional&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;dep.finance.gold_meta&amp;nbsp; and&amp;nbsp;dep.finance.gold_transactional , if require client specific view on the basis of sources.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:25:58 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>rkhand14_ltm</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-08-26T15:25:58Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Three level name space naming standard</title>
      <link>https://community.databricks.com/t5/administration-architecture/three-level-name-space-naming-standard/m-p/53734#M653</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi all, I have not been successful in getting a good grip of the naming conventions for the three level name space.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;Initially i learned about bronze, silver and gold, but i am confused where to put this. The obvious choice may be to use the {&lt;STRONG&gt;catalog&lt;/STRONG&gt;} top level for this, but how will this scale when new usecases and sorces and sensitive data comes in, and ultimately how will it impact access management?&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I am looking for how others have their naming standards and how they solve for the questions i pose above. I am also looking for others comments on my attached picture.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thank you in advance.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2023 09:15:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.databricks.com/t5/administration-architecture/three-level-name-space-naming-standard/m-p/53734#M653</guid>
      <dc:creator>cltj</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-11-24T09:15:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Three level name space naming standard</title>
      <link>https://community.databricks.com/t5/administration-architecture/three-level-name-space-naming-standard/m-p/53738#M655</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your prompt response.&lt;BR /&gt;I dont know why it does not show up for the preview. But downloading it worked for me.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.databricks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/9"&gt;@Retired_mod&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2023 09:18:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.databricks.com/t5/administration-architecture/three-level-name-space-naming-standard/m-p/53738#M655</guid>
      <dc:creator>cltj</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-11-24T09:18:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Three level name space naming standard</title>
      <link>https://community.databricks.com/t5/administration-architecture/three-level-name-space-naming-standard/m-p/166518#M5542</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hey , Glad you raised the confusion at correct place .&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's pretty common mistake to deep dive into Data transformations etc..when you have data .But it's really important to understand where your data resides and how it's being governed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I recommend you to check my LinkedIn post on how to make use 3 level name space wisely: &lt;A href="https://lnkd.in/p/gntZW2u3" target="_blank"&gt;https://lnkd.in/p/gntZW2u3&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 13:32:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.databricks.com/t5/administration-architecture/three-level-name-space-naming-standard/m-p/166518#M5542</guid>
      <dc:creator>Outlier_Talks</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-08-26T13:32:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Three level name space naming standard</title>
      <link>https://community.databricks.com/t5/administration-architecture/three-level-name-space-naming-standard/m-p/166528#M5544</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.databricks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/94868"&gt;@cltj&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is a classic example of how an architecture can become difficult to scale over time. Initially, we onboarded only a few clients and maintained client-specific tables. However, as the number of clients grew, the solution resulted in a large proliferation of tables, increasing maintenance and operational complexity.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To address this, we redesigned the architecture using a metadata-driven framework powered by control/metadata tables. The control/metadata tables store column mappings and transformation rules, while a centralized transactional table stores common attributes along with sequence numbers and source identifiers (Like - sql, excel, datavserse).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This approach significantly improved scalability and maintainability. Onboarding a new client now requires only configuration changes in the metadata layer, without creating additional physical tables. Client-specific views can be exposed at the Gold layer, enabling easy access to curated data while keeping the underlying architecture standardized and scalable.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Naming convention should be like below:&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;department.Usecase.layer&amp;nbsp; =&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;dep.finance.bronze_meta&amp;nbsp; and&amp;nbsp;dep.finance.bronze_transactional&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;dep.finance.silver_meta&amp;nbsp; and&amp;nbsp;dep.finance.silver_transactional&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;dep.finance.gold_meta&amp;nbsp; and&amp;nbsp;dep.finance.gold_transactional , if require client specific view on the basis of sources.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 15:25:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.databricks.com/t5/administration-architecture/three-level-name-space-naming-standard/m-p/166528#M5544</guid>
      <dc:creator>rkhand14_ltm</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-08-26T15:25:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

