good afternoon;
On 8 Jul 2014, at 13:08, Steve Harris <st...@totl.net> wrote:
> Yes, but in that case, the results are per-group, so it’s somewhat obvious.
as obvious as it may be, not on the basis of any “lexical connection” more
obvious than in the case of an aggregation without grouping.
>
> You wouldn’t expect (RAND() as ?A) (RAND() as ?B) to consistently return the
> same number twice, I suspect?
this reader did not expect the sample behavior described initially, either.
not because of the presence or absence of any lexical connection which a
construct such as "SAMPLE(?a, ?b)” might indicate, but because the operator is
defined to be non-deterministic.
>
> On 8 Jul 2014, at 11:17, james anderson <ja...@dydra.com> wrote:
>
>> good afternoon,
>>
>> On 8 Jul 2014, at 11:56, Steve Harris <st...@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 <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.
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---
>> james anderson | ja...@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
---
james anderson | ja...@dydra.com | http://dydra.com
