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 oflameo2@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.