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

Should we consider that REP-i0003 is a direct answer to last year's API review 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