HAS_DESTRUCTION
HAS_DESTRUCTION edge/relationship definition.
Description
Connects a ( :Place:Context ) node to a ( :Vocab:FormationType ) node to record an informed determination of the type of formation process that DESTROYED this Context (with optional period and dates, via edge properties), selected from choices in Vocab:FormationType. Context DESTRUCTION is relatively rare and is almost always caused by CULTURAL/HUMAN activity, including archaeological excavation.
Analogy
"Destruction" column in "Context" table or join row(s), column(s), or table(s) defining relationship between a Context and a formation/destruction type.
CIDOC-CRM Mapping
MAYBE include a short summmary here, but leave the details for the designated CIDOC-CRM section.
Relevant Nodes, Directions, and Cardinality
[ :Place:Context ] ——[ :HAS_DESTRUCTION ]——> @[0..1] [ :Vocab:FormationType ] ⟵ @[0..*]
- Each Context may have zero or ONE DESTROYING FormationType.
- Each DESTROYING FormationType may be related to zero or many Contexts.
Edge/Relationship Properties
| property | type | req? | uniq? | description | example(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - | - | - |
| period | [string list] | n | n | Whenever possible, an informed determination of the cultural period(s) in which this DESTRUCTION took place, as a string array, selected from choices in Vocab:FormationType. | ["Modern"] |
| dateEarliest | string (edtf) | n | n | Whenever possible, an informed determination of the earliest reasonably possible date for this DESTRUCTION, in extended date-time format (level 0/1 supported). | "2024-05" |
| dateLatest | string (edtf) | n | n | Whenever possible, an informed determination of the latest reasonably possible date for this DESTRUCTION, in extended date-time format (level 0/1 supported). | "2024-06" |
| confidence | string | Y | n | Confidence level for asserted DESTRUCTION (including any recorded periods and dates) selected from options defined in the Vocab:Confidence controlled vocabulary. | "moderate" |
POSSIBLE: System/Audit Properties
Need to decide if we should include the full (or a partial) audit trail for edge/relationships. I'm leaning toward YES.(these are not required/enforced by Neo4j but are populated via the UJAP Database web application; these could also be handled—perhaps more simply—by edge/relationship to AuditEvent nodes)
| property | type | req? | uniq? | description | example(s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| proposedAt | datetime | n | n | Timestamp of entity proposal (initial database record creation) | "2026-01-30T02:39:15.638Z" |
| proposedBy | string | n | n | Email or userID of the person who created this entity's initial/proposed record | "person@email.com" |
| approvedAt | datetime | n | n | Timestamp of entity proposal (initial database record creation) | "2026-01-30T12:47:15.638Z" |
| approvedBy | string | n | n | Email or userID of the person who created this entity's initial/proposed record | "person@email.com" |
| committedAt | datetime | n | n | of node entity COMMIT (i.e., formal approval/ publishing to database by an admin). | "2026-01-31T02:41:56.043Z" |
| committedBy | string | n | n | Email or userID of the person who COMMITTED this node entity. | "person@email.com" |
Example Visualization
Insert visualization here, drawn in Arrows.app and using the correct color-coding.