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
(text/plain)