Michael Baudis

I completely agree; it is just the "merge or not". Btw., there was a lively discussion on the Phenopackets / implementers cal yesterday where this was brought up as one...

This has ben resolved in https://github.com/ga4gh-beacon/beacon-v2/pull/167 and should end up in main ASAP.

@Deepthi-v-s It should be `setType`. AFAIK some of the examples were drafted during the development for v2 and haven't always been adjusted. Thanks for the alert. Example: https://progenetix.org/beacon/biosamples/?testMode=true

Closed in #178

@zykonda Thanks for the confirmation! @gsfk Trying to answer your points: > My original proposal didn't introduce an extra granularity, largely because I liked the idea of moving toward a...

> We should update the docs and the description field for BeaconResultsetResponse to make clear that granularity does not necessarily tie you to a particular response shape (in a separate...

@gsfk @dbujold @jrambla Based on the discussions yesterday I've done a number of clean-up and content changes; see the comments above. The main point (besides some naming and description fixes)...

> If we are doing aggregation through its own granularity, shouldn't we make something like "available granularities" discoverable? @gsfk Good point (but not specifically related to this change). ATM only...

@gsfk Thanks for the comments! > I'm not sure adding excluded makes sense for alphanumerics or custom filters. Custom filters in particular are supposed to be open, so presumably don't...

> I want to doublecheck if we have considered properly the actual scenario: An "excluded" phenotypic feature is actually present in the patient's record, but it is flagged as not...