Are Joint Lower and Upper Limits Required in SDF?
According to SDF v 1.6's joint limit syntax, a joint limit's <lower> and <upper> elements are required ("Required: 1") but its text description states "Omit if joint is continuous".
Isn't this a contradiction? If the <lower> and <upper> elements can be omitted to support continuous joints, shouldn't the "Required: 1" be changed to "Required: 0"?
Asked by liangfok on 2016-03-21 09:53:31 UTC
Comments
While SDF is in use in some parts of ROS, we generally prefer it if you'd post questions like this on the Gazebo specific Answers site. I'm going to close this for now: if you don't agree, please re-open and tell us why you think it should be on this site.
Asked by gvdhoorn on 2016-03-21 11:01:07 UTC
I reopened the question because I do not believe this is a Gazebo-specific question. To my knowledge, SDF is not Gazebo-specific and many other processes in the ROS ecosystem like controller, planners, visualizers, etc., may use the models specified within the SDF file.
Asked by liangfok on 2016-03-23 09:38:22 UTC
I'll leave this open, but SDF is actually not really used in ROS (at least not in the parts you mention). That is URDF. The whole SDF vs URDF issue is actually something that many people would like to see resolved.
Asked by gvdhoorn on 2016-03-23 09:48:10 UTC
Agreed. I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that URDF is deprecated and that SDF is its replacement, so my (perhaps wrong) assumption was the entire ROS ecosystem would eventually be upgraded to support SDF.
Asked by liangfok on 2016-03-23 10:04:57 UTC
That is something I hear more often, but is not really true. There was a robot description formats ng live meeting a few weeks back. Might be interesting.
Asked by gvdhoorn on 2016-03-23 10:39:06 UTC