Yes it is definitely out of scope of simple cartesian trajectory but it contains sub-message CartesianTrajectory which is simple and quiet self contained. I think that such complex goal message gives us good basis for discussion on it's building blocks like : CartesianTrajectory, CartesianImpedance .... Pozdrawiam Konrad Banachowicz 2013/6/6 Georg Bartels > On 06/05/2013 09:40 PM, Jonathan Bohren wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Konrad Banachowicz wrote: > >> [CartesianTrajectoryGoal] >> Header header # A stamp of 0 means "execute now" >> >> >> >> >> string[] effector_namesCartesianTrajectory[] 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_velocityCartesianTolerance[] 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 listros-users@code.ros.orghttps://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > ros-users mailing list > ros-users@code.ros.org > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users > >