good morning;
On 8 Jul 2014, at 02:36, Jeremy J Carroll <j...@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 <ja...@dydra.com> wrote:
>
>> good morning;
>>
>> On 8 Jul 2014, at 00:27, Jeremy J Carroll <j...@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 | ja...@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
---
james anderson | ja...@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
