After considering some of possible use-cases i came up with yet another proposal (more detailed) : [1] http://ros.org/wiki/trajectory_msgs/Reviews/Cartesian%20Trajectories_API_Review_2013_06_05 Pozdrawiam Konrad Banachowicz 2013/6/6 Konrad Banachowicz > 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 >> >> >