Overheard (paraphrased to protect the innocent – and no, this is not me):
U: “The report is wrong – it using the ‘postal address’ field for addressing correspondence.”
A: “Ok, what should it use?”
U: “It should use the postal address if [...], otherwise it should use [...], [other convoluted rules]…”
A: “Why isn’t the ‘postal address’ suitable for addressing correspondence?”
U: “Because we often put other addresses into that field.”
A: “Why do you put a non-postal address in the field labelled ‘postal address’?”
U: “We do put the postal address in that field, but for some correspondents that address shouldn’t be used.”
A: “Why are you putting anything but a postal address in the ‘postal address’ field? Why can’t you use the other address fields?”
U: “That’s how we’ve always done it.”
Don’t you love the change requests that come about because of creative uses of the system?

tsk,tsk! Jeff, I’m surprised: you expect developers to BOTHER with such little implementation details as the particular use of a database column? Attributes? That’s just so “old-technology”…Abstract, mate. Abstract!(rolling eyes…)