On 06/05/2013 09:40 PM, Jonathan Bohren wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Konrad Banachowicz <konradb3@gmail.com 
> <mailto:konradb3@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     [CartesianTrajectoryGoal]
>     Header header  # A stamp of 0 means "execute now"
>
>
>
>
>     string[] effector_names
>     CartesianTrajectory[] trajectory
>        PoseStamped tool  # The frame which is being controlled
>        CartesianTrajectoryPoint[] points
>          duration time_from_start
>          Pose pose
>          Twist twist
>     CartesianImpedance[] impedance
>          TBD stiffness % cartesian stiffness
>          TBD damping % damping ratio
>     CartesianTolerance[] path_tolerance  # Tolerance for aborting the path
>        float64 position
>        float64 orientation  # Permitted angular error
>        float64 velocity
>        float64 angular_velocity
>     CartesianTolerance[] goal_tolerance  # Tolerance for when reaching the goal is considered successful
>     JointTrajectory posture  # For determining the redundancy
>     JointImpedance nullspace_impedance # TBD
>
>
>
> I like where this version is going!
Konrad's proposition looks indeed promising. However, I'd like to point 
out that this is more than a Cartesian Trajectory. This looks more like 
a goal message to a very sophisticated controller, e.g. whole-body 
motion framework or iTaSC. Shouldn't the Cartesian Trajectory msg be 
somewhat smaller in scope and then be reused? Maybe more like in the 
spirit of std_msgs which are mainly used as building blocks for bigger 
and semantically annotated messages?
>
> Meanwhile, between comments in different mailing lists, and comments 
> on the wiki in the old robot_mechanism_controllers, it'd be great if 
> we could aggregate this discussion. Really it seems like this is an 
> extension to the trajectory_msgs package, so maybe we can do an online 
> review where people can propose and comment on different options and 
> subjects. I've started one [1] with the initial proposal from the old 
> wg review, and added Konrad's proposal above (feel free to remove/edit 
> that, Konrad). I think we can use the robot control SIG to coordinate, 
> and ping ros-users for high-level notices. Then when we've at least 
> gotten the scope down, we can initiate an REP request. How does that 
> sound?
>
> [1] 
> http://ros.org/wiki/trajectory_msgs/Reviews/Cartesian%20Trajectories_API_Review_2013_06_05
Good idea. From now on moving to the REP?
>
> -j
>
>
> -- 
> Jonathan Bohren
> Laboratory for Computational Sensing and Robotics
> http://dscl.lcsr.jhu.edu/People/JonathanBohren
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users