On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 11:29 +1200, Kevin Buckley wrote: > Apologies for replying out of the thread but I had binned the > original one, and then had the thoughts ! > > If you post my content (assuming you want to reply!), in to the > thread then I'll get to see the thread continue, when that messgae > appears.
I'm putting this back on the list. > > John Lewis <oflam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I am bouncing around a couple of projects that involve collecting and > > storing information about Corporations and States. > > > > Is there a already existing schema that will kind of fit this data in > > general? Of hand, the closest one I can think of is inetOrgPerson is the > > closest thing, but it is probably a stretch. > > > > The kind of data is going to be like taking the the top of of > > Corporations and State's inetOrgPerson data and stuffing it under one > > tree and bundling public data with it such as contracts a company have with > > a state on record. > Have you considered using a domain component (dc=,dc=) based tree, > using dot-us as the root, and the two-letter states sub-domains below it > > dc=ca,dc=us > > and then putting your corporation in below that, for example > > o=mycorp,dc=ca,dc=us > > for the Californian content, in which you "pretend" that the > Californian "branch" > of your Corporation actually "owns" the mycorp,ca.us domain name? > > I take the point made by other respondents about not replying on geographical > info, however a number of corporations do make use of country-based domain > names, for operationsin various theatres, so there is a kind of > precedent, within > the dc= approach. That is what I am thinking about doing. I can probably get away with just using an ou because it is not necessarily a new directory/database. Alternatively I could just make the whole thing flat and put an entry in to describe where it is to be filtered later but I think I like the former better.