"Running With Scissors: Live Coding With Data" by Stuart Halloway 

There is one name, with two sub-parts: last and first. So the sub-parts are organized together under the same parent node. For the other terms you list, there's not one single amount; there are several different amounts so we wouldn't categorize them all under an :amount node. We could say :account/principal :account/accrued-interest :account/overdue since a single account has multiple quantities associated with it. I find "amount" redundant, but you could write :account/principal-amount if you like.

You can use keywords any way you want. To be able to distinguish names globally, there is one convention, though: They should be unique. But that still leaves you with a lot of options: my-org.my-program.names/last-name for example. Or, if you want to completely ignore the namespace part: my-org.my-program/last-name (consider my-org and my-program to be placeholders for actual names). That way you can use the same namespace for every keyword in your data but still ensure that your keywords will be distinct from everybody else’s. I dont fully understand what problem you describe in the second part of your comment, but here is an example of keywords in nested maps: {:my-org.my-program.person/name {:my-org.my-program.person.name/last-name “some name” :my-org.my-program.person.name/first-name “some name”}} To retrieve the respective nested values, assuming the map is assigned to a symbol called “person”: (get-in person [:my-org.my-program.person/name :my-org.my-program.person.name/first-name])