I’m not convinced that there’s no attempt to standardize integration of ML technologies into ROS2. I think you can make a pretty strong argument that ROS2 itself is the standardized integration: Stochastic approaches are a tool for a job, and sometimes it’s the right tool to provide the location of an identified object (Poses), to identify points for object grasping/manipulation (rail_grasp), to segment objects within a field of depth (pcl), to provide localalization estimates (PoseStamped), to instruct movement behavior (Twist), and many others.
But, those interfaces already exist in a way that doesn’t require the implementation to be probabilistic (which is good, because there’s no reason for them to be since sometimes it’s not the right tool for the job). I suppose a working group could try to standardize the python/c++ API’s to models created for specific tasks, but that sort of defeats the purpose of having ROS involved in your system at all.
I might be missing something, but the most concrete goal listed here is to provide that integration, but I think that’s been done already. But maybe there’s some use-case or background experience I’m missing here?