I'll lay out my scenario. I have several things that represent a physical asset (PC, server, NAS, switch, printer, firewall, etc) in my graph database:
The primary source of truth (which service tickets are based on) is in asset management (:Crmasset).
But there are other nodes that also represent assets: RMM/Patching platform (:Mwphost), another monitoring platform (:Nagioshost), an LDAP computer object (:Ldapobject).
Part of the use of this is to validate when an asset is properly represented in these various systems. Currently I'm doing something like this:
(:Crmasset)-[:PATCHED_VIA]->(:Mwphost)
(:Crmasset)-[:MONITORED_VIA]->(:Nagioshost)
(:Ldapobject)-[:COMPUTER_OBJ]->(:Crmasset)
Of course there are often several properties in common (FQDN, mac address, name, description...)
So when would it make more sense to simply add a label to the existing node that represents the device is present in multiple platforms vs DIFFERENT nodes with relationships added?
We use this system to be sure our onboarding policies are followed (example: Server devices should be in patching AND monitoring, PCs should be only in the patching system. ALL assets should be reflected in our asset management platform regardless of monitoring requirements....