I saw a discussion about this and it is relevant for my current campaign as I'm still not sure what the ruling would be.

Certain artifacts and minor/major detrimental effects that are either picked by the DM or rolled randomly. These can be pretty annoying to deal with, but can be cured in certain ways (like casting greater restoration for certain detrimental effects).

The question is: Does identify reveal to the caster that these detrimental effects exist? Would it tell the caster what the detrimental effects are?

I know curses aren't revealed by identify, and the crux of the argument was a detrimental effect isn't a curse, and therefore identify should reveal it. But the other side of the argument is, if the purpose of identify is to not reveal negative aspects of an item (and to have the negative effects exposed when the item is worn/attuned), so it wouldn't tell the caster that the item will harm them.

I understand this may seem like a classic RAW v RAI, but I was wondering if any book or official source made a ruling on this? 

As you said, Artifact Properties (whether beneficial or detrimental) are not part of Cursed Items (e.g. Demon Armor) rule.

So I'd say those Artifact Properties should be revealed to the player, so casting Identify for an Artifact should work the same as with any other Magical Item.

I just remembered the following line from the 3e Identify spell :)

The spell determines all magic properties of a single magic item, including how to activate those functions (if appropriate), and how many charges are left (if any).

Identify does not function when used on an artifact.