Re: Orocos 'Overview' document updated

On Friday 10 March 2006 15:57, Klaas Gadeyne wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 March 2006 23:17, Herman Bruyninckx wrote:
[...]
>
> I think Herman's remarks about being robot centered are related to
> Section 1 "What is orocos" and Section 2 "Target audience" (e.g. the
> second sentence about the project's aim).  I agreewith him on that
> matter,  while I have no problem using concrete "robot examples" for
> making things more practical.

I agree. The text is quite old and back then we focussed on 'robots' only.

>
> Section 2, item 3: Application builders
> In the first sentence, you state they are building "particular
> applications".  Two sentences later however, you state that
> <quote>
> An example Orocos application is the Orocos Control Kernel, which
> provides an application framework for (motion) control, with a set of
> components which implement control or planning algorithms.
> </quote>
> "An application which provides an application framework" is something I
> don't understand.

It should say twice 'application template'.

>
> In the same paragraph you use the word "architecture".  I guess you
> mean with that word something like "how components are organized
> together into an application (i.e.~e.g.~connected to each other)?  I
> think this (and probably other terms too) should become a link to the
> glossary.

Funny that you mention it :
<http://www.orocos.org/glossary.html#architecture>

>
> > > - The introduction of the section "3. Orocos Project Software Overview"
> > >    is old, to say the least.
> >
> > It clearly separates this project from other projects which name(d)
> > themselves "Orocos" as well. I do not understand how this can be 'old'.
>
> See my previous off-list mail about the orocos@faw link being dead
> (that's even worse than old :-).  And note the official name of orca
> is now orca2.

I believe the official name is still 'Orca' and only the version number bumped 
to '2'.

>
> - Figure 2 does not look too clear when printed with a non-color
> printer :-)

Ack.

>
> > > - Figure 3 is not really about "implementation", is it?
> >
> > It is too abstract, but technically, implementation is done with state
> > machines and it 'shows' a state machine... needs work.
>
> Indeed, I didn't understand this either. :-)
> You also use the term "peer" in this figure, which is not (yet)
> explained I guess...

Can rename that to 'other', but 'peer' is perfect english and has no special 
meaning. But I can imagine that it is confusing for the non-english speaking 
reader.

>
> - Section 3.1.5:  After the ambiguity between application (1) and
>    application framework (2), a third term is introduced:  application
>    templates (3).  I guess you mean the same thing with (2) and (3),
>    and as framework is already used in another context in this intro, I
>    suggest to remove the term "application framework" and replace it by
>    (3).

Consider it done.

Peter
-- 
Peter Soetens -- FMTC -- <http://www.fmtc.be>