Re: SAMPLE aggregate function

good morning;

On 8 Jul 2014, at 02:36, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com> wrote:

> Ah yes
> 
> What about
> 
> SELECT (SAMPLE(?a) as ?A) (SAMPLE(?b) as ?B)
> {
>   { BIND(1 as ?a) }
>   UNION
>  { BIND(2 as ?b)}
> }
> 
> then 1, 2 looks like an attractive answer

should that remain ones expectation in this case as well?

SELECT (SAMPLE(?a) as ?A) (SAMPLE(?b) as ?B)
{
  { BIND(1 as ?a) }
  UNION
 { BIND(2 as ?b)}
  UNION
 { BIND(3 as ?b)}
}

> 
> Jeremy 
> 
> 
> On Jul 7, 2014, at 3:49 PM, james anderson <james@dydra.com> wrote:
> 
>> good morning;
>> 
>> On 8 Jul 2014, at 00:27, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I was thinking about SAMPLE and feel that there is a bug with the spec because it allows
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A=1 B=2
>>> 
>>> as an answer from
>>> 
>>> SELECT (SAMPLE(?a) as ?A) (SAMPLE(?b) as ?B)
>>> {
>>>   { BIND(1 as ?a) BIND(1 as ?b)}
>>>   UNION
>>>  { BIND(2 as ?a) BIND(2 as ?b)}
>>> }
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think the principal of least surprise would suggest that a single select should use the same solution to pick out the sample values, giving either 1,1 or 2,2 as possible solutions here.
>> 
>> what would be the consequence of a solution in which one of the variables was not bound?
>> 
>>> 
>>> Jeremy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

---
james anderson | james@dydra.com | http://dydra.com