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 <
konradb3@gmail.com>
> 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
>>
>>
>
(text/plain)