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 <[email protected]> wrote: > good afternoon, > > On 8 Jul 2014, at 11:56, Steve Harris <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 | [email protected] | http://dydra.com > > > > >
