I'm exploring the impact of division- or group-specific content Publications in a BluePrint.
For example, we might have:
- 010S Schemas
- 020 Global Content
- 030 Group 1 Content
- 030 Group 2 Content
- 030 Group n Content
Assuming m languages for translation (and disregarding region-specific translation needs), I see two options here:
- Simple setup with many publications. Each Group needs its own translation publications. This could grow to n content publications x m translation publications.
- Merge into shared translation publications. All 030 Group publications could potentially "merge" into each translation publication.
The caveats for option 2 as I understand it include:
- Naming conventions required to avoid organizational and item conflicts (i.e. conflicting WebDAV paths).
- Priority settings matter (e.g. Group 1 won't get its localized content translated if it doesn't have publication priority).
I prefer leading with a single content publication in BluePrint design sessions, but maybe I'm biased as a Tridion user (don't make me jump too much) and I'm fine with setting authorization as needed for different groups.
- Am I missing any pros/cons? Is option 2 practical or "seen in the wild?"
- Have you seen the two scenarios match certain patterns? So far I've seen these specific publications match completely separate groups (separate development and/or geography). But could this be a North American versus European BluePrint distinction or maybe it follows the size or type of an organization?