common LDAP schemas to draw attribute definitions from

[Nate Klingenstein]

> For a similar reason, I'm also hesitant to use URLs, because I feel like they should resolve to relevant information.  I
> realize we could start to address both by improving documentation.

I've been arguing for URL-named attributes that host both machine-parseable basic information about the attribute as well as a human-legible explanation of what the data are and failing miserably at it for almost a decade, so I obviously have deep sympathy for this one.  It appears that there just isn't a use case for this, or attributes are simply too complex to be handled by such a basic mechanism.  I don't know, as it makes such intuitive sense to me compared to URN's that are a challenge to resolve.

Best,
Nate.