In the FAIR Genomes project we want to encode the permissions given by the patient in the informed consent using DUO. We use the ICO class "Complete informed consent form indicating consent" ICO:0000214 with a relationship directly to the DUO class "Data Use Permission" DUO:0000001. However we're struggling to find a proper predicate for this relationship. Currently we use IAO property "denotes" IAO:0000219, but this is a very generic property, that seems to be too broad. I discussed this with Melanie Courtot and she suggested to look again in ICO, but I failed to find a more appropriate property. I did consider RO property "bearer of" RO:0000053, but this property is defined as "a relation between an independent continuant (the bearer) and a specifically dependent continuant (the dependent), in which the dependent specifically depends on the bearer for its existence", while both classes in this case are defined as a dependent continuant.
In this case also relevant is the BFO ticket 182, which suggests to remove these subclasses of continuant, in which case "bearer of" would become an appropriate property.
In the FAIR Genomes project we want to encode the permissions given by the patient in the informed consent using DUO. We use the ICO class "Complete informed consent form indicating consent" ICO:0000214 with a relationship directly to the DUO class "Data Use Permission" DUO:0000001. However we're struggling to find a proper predicate for this relationship. Currently we use IAO property "denotes" IAO:0000219, but this is a very generic property, that seems to be too broad. I discussed this with Melanie Courtot and she suggested to look again in ICO, but I failed to find a more appropriate property. I did consider RO property "bearer of" RO:0000053, but this property is defined as "a relation between an independent continuant (the bearer) and a specifically dependent continuant (the dependent), in which the dependent specifically depends on the bearer for its existence", while both classes in this case are defined as a dependent continuant. In this case also relevant is the BFO ticket 182, which suggests to remove these subclasses of continuant, in which case "bearer of" would become an appropriate property.