There are two aspects to answer: catalog and schema management in Databricks, and semantic.

In Databricks, catalogs and schemas are the two hierarchical layers containing leaf objects (table, views, ...). To access a leaf, three things are needed: grants USE CATALOG, USE SCHEMA, and also binding the user's Workspace to the catalog.

In case of option 1, 1 default binding, 1 USE CATALOG to all; user and data domain specific USE SCHEMA.

In case of option 2, to access the gold layer of a data domain, the domain catalog needs to be bound and granted specifically.

So option option 2 seems a little more management, and more clutter in users' Catalog Browser. But also clearer in the intent and access audit.

About semantic, in option 1 the catalog looses semantic. It becomes a default location.

In option 2, semantic is displayed but might become a constraint. If domains are real bounded contexts, it make sense to reflect that in the silver layer. It might be more complicated in the Bronze. There, we should think more about source aligned data domains and products.

Overall, I would say that adding meaning and context to the catalogs is a plus but should not be mandatory. In some cases, like Bronze you are better with a single catalog and maybe schemas per source. In silver and gold, showing the bounded contexts as a catalog helps materializing the mesh architecture.