[ros-users] [Discourse.ros.org] [Computer Vision / Perception] Proposal - New Computer Vision Message Standards

ruffsl ros.discourse at gmail.com
Tue May 9 22:53:33 UTC 2017

Currently, what is the difference in roles between the two poses in `Detection3D` vs `BoundingBox3D` nested inside it?:

  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:

[Visit Topic](https://discourse.ros.org/t/proposal-new-computer-vision-message-standards/1819/3) or reply to this email to respond.

More information about the ros-users mailing list