Re: SAMPLE aggregate function

good afternoon,

On 8 Jul 2014, at 11:56, Steve Harris <steve@totl.net> wrote:

> I suspect that’s less surprising than the alternative. There’s no lexical connection between the SAMPLE() expressions so I don’t see why a user would expect them to return values from the same solution.

the expectation is not without analog, in that, if the aggregation involves groups, the bindings in each solution must derive from the same group.

> 
> If it was SAMPLE(?a, ?b) AS (?a, ?b) I would agree.
> 
> On 7 Jul 2014, at 23:27, 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.
>> 
>> Jeremy
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 

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