Narcis, I know this is a little late, but after seeing the conventions discussion on GitHub, I wanted to comment/ask:
There are a lot of other conventions for other domains and specific implementations, but there aren't a lot of definitive works on the overarching data model and specific conceptual data models that represent each 'message'. See, e.g. [1], which is itself rather lacking in details.
The point is that by starting at the conceptual data model level, we could say "these are the details required to communicate concept X", and then have something specific for ROS (or ROS2, if needed) that provides rules on how the conceptual data model is mapped into a specific message-specification format. The payoff is that you can change the way you map the CDM to the LDM, and be kind of ready for a whole new messaging system. You could even write adapters that convert from one to the other (LDM) realtime, auto-generating adapters between middlewares.
Should we (we == ROS/ROS maritime people) be thinking at this level? Or is there really not any interest from the academic/start-up side? From big corporate entities I think there is interest, especially when it comes to interoperable defense stuff.
T.
[1] IEEE 1872-2015 Standard Ontologies for Robotics and Automation
---
[Visit Topic](
https://discourse.ros.org/t/bts-workshop-adoption-of-conventions-in-the-underwater-ros-community-a-summary/6478/4) 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>
(text/plain)