The Altair Community is migrating to a new platform to provide a better experience for you. In preparation for the migration, the Altair Community is on read-only mode from October 28 - November 6, 2024. Technical support via cases will continue to work as is. For any urgent requests from Students/Faculty members, please submit the form linked here

Warning after using operator windowing

wesselwessel Member Posts: 537 Maven
edited October 2019 in Help
Hello,

When I use the windowing operator and tick the box "create label", it creates an attribute named label with role label.
So far so good. But somehow after this I get the warning: Cannot check whether input example set has special attribute 'label'.
The process runs fine, but it would be nice to be able to create a warning free process.

Best regards,

Wessel
Tagged:

Answers

  • landland RapidMiner Certified Analyst, RapidMiner Certified Expert, Member Posts: 2,531 Unicorn
    Hi Wessel,
    the problem is, that this operator cannot be sure if there's a label in the data it receives. Sometimes one simply cannot know from a glance at the meta data alone, if there will be a label in the process. That's why it report's "Cannot be sure". And that's why it's only a warning.


    Greetings,
      Sebastian
  • wesselwessel Member Posts: 537 Maven
    Okay, but there is also an error here:

    The attribute 'label' is missing in the input example set.

    You know in advance when you tag "create label" there will always be a label in the resulting dataset.

    If I use many windowing operators my "problems tab" is filled with warning and errors, yet my process runs fine! :-/
  • wesselwessel Member Posts: 537 Maven
    this process runs fine:

    image
  • landland RapidMiner Certified Analyst, RapidMiner Certified Expert, Member Posts: 2,531 Unicorn
    Hi,
    well, what should I say...We are doing our best to keep as much information as possible, but somewhere it looses too much to be sure.
    But if you notice any problems that could be avoided, please send us a detailed feature request (best with an example process independent from data). We will then correct this behavior...

    Greetings,
      Sebastian
Sign In or Register to comment.