On Mon Nov 10 2014 at 5:54:24 AM Antoine Rennuit <antoinerennuit@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>    - Should we consider that REP-i0003
>    <https://github.com/ros-industrial/rep/blob/master/rep-I0003.rst> is a
>    direct answer to last year's API review
>    <http://wiki.ros.org/trajectory_msgs/Reviews/Cartesian%20Trajectories_API_Review_2013_06_05>
>    on cartesian trajectories?
>    - I really believe that the trajectory definition and the way this
>    trajectory is achieved (e.g. via impedance control) are 2 different
>    subjects which should be treated in isolation: let us first make the
>    cartesian trajectory definition good and then later we can build on it for
>    impedance control. But really cartesian trajectory is path and impedance is
>    control: complementary but different subjects.
>
>
1) I think REO-i0003 is definitely related, but not an answer to the needs
of a standard ROS message type for describing cartesian trajectories.

2) I think you're right, it makes sense to have two separate types of
cartesian trajectories, maybe define a simple purely kinematic
CartesianTrajectory and a CartesianImpedanceTrajectory with impedance
properties. Maybe this would also be a good time to specify a
JointImpedanceTrajectory with variable joint-space impedance.

-j