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 <
georg.bartels@cs.uni-bremen.de>
> On 06/05/2013 09:40 PM, Jonathan Bohren wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Konrad Banachowicz <konradb3@gmail.com>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
>
>