PBIP and TMDL. does this change our recommended approach

[DebbieE]

When we worked with PBIX files previously we had an approach recommended to us by Microsoft.

Create the semantic model in a separate pbix and publish

Create the reports in new PBIX file(s) and connect to the semantic model (So we end up with multiple PBIX files.

Obviously now we have PBIB and the new TMDL update for semantic models. Im really wanting to move to this but my question is. Does thjis change the recommended approach above or should we create the main reporting in the same file as the semantic model (With opportunities to add other reports in separate PBIP files later?

Im only thinking this because, the project files allow us to work together on one file so do we still need the semantic model and report in two separate files?

[RuiRomanoMS]

Thanks for the feedback. It indicates that we need to provide better clarity on the PBIP mental model in our documentation.

The suggestion to separate semantic models from reports remains very valid. PBIP reinforces this by clearly separating the semantic model and the report into two distinct folders when you save as PBIP.

And like in the workspace, you can have multiple reports all connected to the same semantic model, with no duplication of the semantic model definition and need to publish the semantic model to the service and use live connect.

\Report1
\Report2
\Report3
\SemanticModel

All reports must have the same byPath connection to the semantic model folder: "../SemanticModel".

[Greg_Deckler · Accepted solution]

@DebbieE I think that this is a gray area and either approach will technically work. I still see value in keeping a separate semantic model as a stand alone PBIX mainly around separation of duties but others may see it differently. Also, still a preview feature so I wouldn't adopt it until it GA's.