- From: Steve Harris <steve@totl.net>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 12:08:20 +0100
- To: james anderson <james@dydra.com>
- Cc: "public-sparql-dev@w3.org" <public-sparql-dev@w3.org>
Yes, but in that case, the results are per-group, so it’s somewhat obvious.
You wouldn’t expect (RAND() as ?A) (RAND() as ?B) to consistently return the same number twice, I suspect?
On 8 Jul 2014, at 11:17, james anderson <james@dydra.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 11:09:26 UTC