Announcing the Hardware Robot Information Model (HRIM)

[vmayoral]

Hello @gbiggs!

How exactly are you compatible with the (draft) ISO 22166-1?

I/we don’t claim that HRIM is compatible with the draft of ISO 22166-1. Doing so would be incorrect as the ongoing standard covers (or that’s my hope for its final shape) much, much more than a model. As far as I know, the existing draft does not even propose a model and the closest thing included is a pointer to HAL4RT (more about this below).

What we claim is that HRIM has been presented and introduced to the experts pushing the ongoing standard. We received feedback already from several of those experts and our hope is that we can inspire some additional content on the working document which currently, IMHO, lacks of software abstractions that facilitate interoperability.

@gbiggs

How are you compatible with HAL4RT? There are two versions of that specification proposed; the first has died and the second was rejected because it doesn’t contain anything of use to robotics.

Although what you say is right and HAL4RT 2.0 isn’t still official (AFAIK JASA will revise and submit the new version to OMG in June this year but you probably know it better than I do), we based ourselves on the latest draft of HAL4RT 2.0 available (verified just a few days ago with Kenichi Nakamura when he facilitated the last version after I introduced HRIM to him (leading HAL4RT)). We claim we conform with the statements indicated in this last draft and which refer to specific sections within HAL4RT 2.0 document. The conformance of each one of this sections is discussed in Appendix I at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.01459.pdf.

Taking into account these aspects, we believe that claiming conformance is valid but probably, stating that we’re on the path to conform (formally) with HAL4RT 2.0 is more correct since as you point out, (HAL4RT 2.0) isn’t official yet.

@gbiggs

The proposed APIs are also not compatible with ROS.

I’m not really sure we agree on this. Could you mention which sections make you think this way?

@gbiggs

How do you support OpenEL 3.0, which is a private commercial project (not an international standard)? Do you provide an implementation of its APIs? They don’t seem compatible with ROS, to me.

This is likely the claim I can defend the least since most of the information we found is in Japanese and it was a tremendously hard task to understand it right. In fact, although we looked into it, we were not going to mention anything about it however, a few days ago I got the following from Kenichi:

At this time, OpenEL 3.0 and HAL4RT 2.0 are almost the same.
So there is no document for OpenEL 3.0 in English now.

Everything we saw (and understood), make us think this way as well so on this basis, we included that sentence.