On Mon Nov 10 2014 at 5:54:24 AM Antoine Rennuit <
antoinerennuit@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> - Should we consider that REP-i0003
> <https://github.com/ros-industrial/rep/blob/master/rep-I0003.rst> is a
> direct answer to last year's API review
> <http://wiki.ros.org/trajectory_msgs/Reviews/Cartesian%20Trajectories_API_Review_2013_06_05>
> on cartesian trajectories?
> - I really believe that the trajectory definition and the way this
> trajectory is achieved (e.g. via impedance control) are 2 different
> subjects which should be treated in isolation: let us first make the
> cartesian trajectory definition good and then later we can build on it for
> impedance control. But really cartesian trajectory is path and impedance is
> control: complementary but different subjects.
>
>
1) I think REO-i0003 is definitely related, but not an answer to the needs
of a standard ROS message type for describing cartesian trajectories.
2) I think you're right, it makes sense to have two separate types of
cartesian trajectories, maybe define a simple purely kinematic
CartesianTrajectory and a CartesianImpedanceTrajectory with impedance
properties. Maybe this would also be a good time to specify a
JointImpedanceTrajectory with variable joint-space impedance.
-j
_______________________________________________
ros-users mailing list
ros-users@lists.ros.org
http://lists.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users