A nomenclature question

Hi,

some days ago, Herman wrote:

> Ok, it's true. Do you recomend some nomeclature? 
> Just homogeneous transformation matrices. Or the "TCS" (travelling
> coordinate system), which is however nothing else but normal common
> sense. In general, I prefer to allow multiple interfaces for the user,
> and internally store everything in the most singularity-free
> representation, which are the ones I mentioned above. (or, rather, in
> a "symbolic" form that describes the geometric relationships with more
> than just pure coordinates).

I have thought about it, and about the document  kin&dyn API. If you want to 
do some nice and efficient implementation, you would need some kind of 
mathematical representation. And I think that to chose the nomenclature it's 
a very important thing. I can understant to have several interfaces for the 
user to intruduce the serial chain, or the kinematic structure as he/she 
wish, but you will need some kind of representation to operate. It would be a 
good idea to chosse ONE to implement internally and after to create all the 
user interfaces? And which one?

I have searching nomenclatures and I have found in a thesis:
http://vrai-group.epfl.ch/projects/cinegen/thesis.pdf that choose the 
Kleinfunger-Khalil nomenclature that the Travelling Coordinate System. I have 
tried to find some information about the last one but I'm waiting the book in 
the library. The implementation of the kinematics and dynamics orocos library 
what use, or which one will use?

Regards.

Leo