Currently, what is the difference in roles between the two poses in `Detection3D` vs `BoundingBox3D` nested inside it?:
```
Detection3D
vision_msgs/Classification3D classification
geometry_msgs/Pose pose <-
vision_msgs/BoundingBox3D bbox
geometry_msgs/Pose pose <-
geometry_msgs/Vector3 size
```
As in, what is the relationship that would afford the use the nested [classification.header](https://github.com/Kukanani/vision_msgs_proposal/blob/6b0f13d6b92dd0a6199d0547b8f7359ac07ad453/msg/Detection3D.msg#L13) to convey the detection's frame_id?
I suppose this is a larger question of semantics or ML ecology, but perhap I'm of the thought that classifications derive from detections, such as ROI's, as opposed to viersa. In whichever case, I think the relationship should be made explicit if we are starting to nest standard message types.
To just throw this out here, I've been using SPENCER for a bit recently, and I'm beginning to really appreciate the message type layout they've used. Perhaps we could take some hits from the project:
https://github.com/spencer-project/spencer_people_tracking/tree/master/messages
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/proposal-new-computer-vision-message-standards/1819/3) or reply to this email to respond.
If you do not want to receive messages from ros-users please use the unsubscribe link below. If you use the one above, you will stop all of ros-users from receiving updates.
______________________________________________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
Unsubscribe: <
http://lists.ros.org/mailman//options/ros-users>