Michael Baudis

@alaric-rd Yes, we do the same for `geneId` in the [bycon](https://bycon.progenetix.org) stack. A problem with the reporting back is that this is all "info" level - other implementations wouldn't match...

@gsfk Your first option looks correct per spec (`field id in the case of numeric or alphanumeric fields`) but IMO this description is problematic since one usually would match on...

@gsfk You're right w/ the numerical etc. values; I don't think we have an expression for a response element here. This would actually make sense to define this key-value-operator concept...

@gsfk ... for numerical values you may want to define sensible classes (e.g. ``` - ageAtCollection: id: ">=18" - ageAtCollection: id: ">=65" ``` ... as reported filtering options - but...

@gsfk I have tried to make the documentation a bit clearer for age etc. ... http://docs.genomebeacons.org/filters/#pseudo-numerical-value-queries This is based on our own way to handle this now. Still, have to...

@gsfk > Fundamentally all I really wanted was better alignment between filteringTerms and beaconFilteringTermsResults, because I don't understand why they're so far apart. Tru dat (and on the radar).

@jrambla @gsfk Maybe we should think about having the scope specifically documented to refer to the default model?! Would be a great way to solve some misunderstandings (and actually get...

### Use case examples #### All breast adenocarcinoma samples by NCIt (NCIT:C5214), excluding triple-negative (NCIT:C71732) This is a simple use case where a diagnosis is queried w/ the explicit exclusion...

@redmitry These are actually 2 questions. > May the exclusion (negation) be included in filtering logic along with AND & OR? If Boolean queries are developed than negated filters would...

O.k., several convincing arguments although they fall into different camps: 1. the `excluded` flag would be ambiguous inits use since it doesn't define an explicit test so far (on could...