I had that downloaded, but I didn't take the time to read the whole standard. I am going to be sure to do that next time I had a question like this.

Thanks for the reminder that using Geographic location is a poor way to design a directory. I want mine to be more like an org chart that you can dig a little deeper into.

The organization class is a really good start. I my want to sprinkle a couple of non-standard attributes here or there, but there is probably an auxiliary class I can throw in.

On Thu, 2017-04-06 at 15:05 +0200, Michael Ströder wrote:

John Lewis 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?

There are many such schemas out there.

As a starting point the LDAPv3 standard defines:

object class 'country': https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4519#section-3.2

object class 'organization': https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4519#section-3.8

Some more in the COSINE LDAP/X.500 schema: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4524#section-3.6

...

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.

In general relying on geographic locations for structuring the directory information tree (DIT) like defined in X.521 already failed years ago. In niche use-cases it might work.

Ciao, Michael.