Re: what functions should we include in SPARQL 1.1?

On 08/11/10 18:28, Steve Harris wrote:
> On 2010-11-08, at 11:45, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> snip
>>>> Yes, I share this thought. I have no a priori objection to RAND() but had the same reaction that this particular example can be pretty misleading as to what the meaning of the same query without ORDER BY RAND() is.
>>> Agreed, I think. I wouldn't advocate using that as an example in the document, just that it's a common real world requirement, which we can't satisfy currently.
>> All seems like a good idea.
>> Steve -
>> Either we get someone to take an action to produce the content we can incorporate into the doc.
>> Or are you going to take this action and write this into the doc?
>> I can add RAND to the grammar as:
>> RAND()
>> RAND(expression)
> I'm happy to take an action to describe RAND(), but I'm not sure about RAND(expression). The defn. in SQL is a little murky, and it's tricky to make use of.

Like Paul, a way to make tests stable would be useful.

Don't know what SQL defines it as but the way I'm used to seeing it is 
that RAND(seed) would produce the same sequence of random numbers each


Received on Monday, 8 November 2010 22:40:49 UTC