[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Is there directory schema for storing information on States and Corporations?

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.