Hi OpenArm community,
URML (urml.dev) is a small, Apache-2.0 language for describing robot intent: a person (or a higher-level planner) expresses an intent, URML turns it into a typed primitive, validates it against the robot's declared capabilities and a safety envelope, then dispatches to the robot's own control stack. OpenArm is a clean, fully-open arm platform, and URML is interesting to it as the layer above the SDK -- not a replacement for it.
Nothing here asks the project to adopt, host, or maintain anything. This is a request for comment.
The mapping: OpenArm's joints, end-effector, reach, and payload become a URML capability manifest. A bimanual OpenArm declares its two arms (each with its gripper), so a command can address left / right / a named arm, and a coordinated two-arm intent uses URML's bimanual primitive; the single-arm config is the same manifest with one declared arm. grasp, release, and a bimanual lift are then validated against the declared arms, gripper force limits, and the active safety envelope before anything moves. Your SDK stays the execution layer.
Two real questions: (1) does mapping OpenArm's single- and dual-arm configs onto a URML manifest (per-arm declaration + a bimanual primitive) read right for how the arms are actually addressed? (2) Is a validated-intent gate above the OpenArm SDK interesting for contact-rich work -- and which is the cleaner first seam, the manifest mapping or the dispatch adapter?
Full write-up: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0491-openarm-outreach.md
Thanks for OpenArm; an open bimanual platform is exactly where the dual-arm-intent question is worth asking.
Ido Yahalomi (URML, greenvh@gmail.com)
AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.
Hi OpenArm community,
URML (urml.dev) is a small, Apache-2.0 language for describing robot intent: a person (or a higher-level planner) expresses an intent, URML turns it into a typed primitive, validates it against the robot's declared capabilities and a safety envelope, then dispatches to the robot's own control stack. OpenArm is a clean, fully-open arm platform, and URML is interesting to it as the layer above the SDK -- not a replacement for it.
Nothing here asks the project to adopt, host, or maintain anything. This is a request for comment.
The mapping: OpenArm's joints, end-effector, reach, and payload become a URML capability manifest. A bimanual OpenArm declares its two arms (each with its gripper), so a command can address left / right / a named arm, and a coordinated two-arm intent uses URML's
bimanualprimitive; the single-arm config is the same manifest with one declared arm.grasp,release, and a bimanual lift are then validated against the declared arms, gripper force limits, and the active safety envelope before anything moves. Your SDK stays the execution layer.Two real questions: (1) does mapping OpenArm's single- and dual-arm configs onto a URML manifest (per-arm declaration + a bimanual primitive) read right for how the arms are actually addressed? (2) Is a validated-intent gate above the OpenArm SDK interesting for contact-rich work -- and which is the cleaner first seam, the manifest mapping or the dispatch adapter?
Full write-up: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0491-openarm-outreach.md
Thanks for OpenArm; an open bimanual platform is exactly where the dual-arm-intent question is worth asking.
Ido Yahalomi (URML, greenvh@gmail.com)
AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.