The objective of this tutorial is to demonstrate how to create composable models for robots. Here, we focus on a simple kinematic chain with one degree of freedom (DoF) because (i) kinematic chains are the smallest viable world models that robots employ and hence go beyond toy examples; (ii) they provide many building blocks that are also relevant for other domains; (iii) they demonstrate the challenges in modelling and how to address them with composable models; and (iv) kinematic chains with more than one DoF are structurally very similar to the 1-DoF chain.
The following figure (Figure 1) depicts the kinematic chain example that we will
study below. It consists of the two links link1 and link2 as well as the
revolute joint joint1.
 |
|---|
| Figure 1: Kinematic chain example |
Here we choose to represent our models and metamodels with JSON-LD. JSON-LD is a W3C standard to encode linked data in JSON and hence, it bridges between the widely-used JSON format and the Semantic Web with all its established tools.
JSON-LD introduces several keywords that recur in the models so that we briefly
explain them here. First, each model can be identified by an identifier, an
Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI), with the @id property. Second,
one or more types (also IRIs) can be associated with a model by using the
@type property. Third, @context indicates a context which describes the
mapping between the JSON world and the Semantic Web world. In other words, the
context defines the metamodels that a model conforms to. Common contexts or
elements can be hoisted out of a model to a composition model (e.g. the
"document root"). Finally, a graph can be reified using the @graph keyword.
The first step is to create the "skeleton" or "stick figure" for the bodies in the kinematic chain. By skeleton, we mean the bare minimum structure to which we attach further models. Here, the skeleton consists of points, vectors and frames as shown in the following diagram (Figure 2). The arrows indicate that the origins of both frames coincide, but for better readability both frames are spatially separated in the figure.
 |
|---|
| Figure 2: Skeleton of the kinematic chain example |
Note that the links' spatial extent or shape is not part of the skeleton. Instead, it is one of the possible attachments to entities in the skeleton. All attachments, some of them discussed below, are independent of each other and only refer to the common elements defined in the "skeleton".
The point is the most primitive entity in any space. In the context of robotics the purposes of points are multi-fold. They are the building block of further geometric entities e.g. line segments, vectors or frames as we will see below. Points also play various roles in encoding spatial relations or dynamic quantities. For instance, they are required to define positions, or they represent the point of observation/measurement for twists and wrenches.
The following example shows a point — that is meant to represent the origin of the "link1-joint1" frame — that lives in 3D Euclidean space as indicated by its type. As (Euclidean) space consists of an infinite amount of points, the interpretation of this model is that it designates one particular instance.
{
"@id": "rob:link1-joint1-origin",
"@type": [ "3D", "Euclidean", "Point" ]
}The types 3D, Euclidean and Point are examples of what we call semantic
constraints in that they implicitly encode constraints (that can however be
looked up in the definition of the type). This contrasts with structural
constraints which define a specific representation of a model and allow checking
for well-formedness in terms of the presence or absence of certain properties in
that model.
Additionally, the three types in the above model demonstrate multi-conformance. That means that a model can conform to more than one metamodel or type. This is a feature that lacks in many established model-driven engineering approaches. Also note that in the step from JSON to JSON-LD all strings in the type array get converted to IRIs so that one can choose to look up their meaning.
Euclidean space distinguishes two types of vectors:
- Free vectors that possess only a direction and a magnitude.
- Bound vectors that are composition relations between two Euclidean points (the start and end point). Bound vectors are also vectors and hence possess a direction and magnitude.
The following model exemplifies a bound vector that will represent the x-direction of the "link1-joint1" frame. Hence, we also impose the constraint that it should be of unit length (this constraint is valid only in metric spaces such as Euclidean space). Also note that we omit the end point because here it is not relevant to the application.
{
"@id": "rob:link1-joint1-x",
"@type": [ "3D", "Euclidean", "Vector",
"BoundVector", "UnitLength" ],
"start": "rob:link1-joint1-origin"
}Similar to the previous example, neither the Vector type nor the
UnitLength type impose a structural constraint. We notice some mismatch in the
terminology: one would usually not refer to "unit length" as a "type". It is
actually a constraint that this model must conform to. Especially in the setting
of defining a frame and later a standard basis of a vector space (see below),
"unit length" must at some point be axiomatically grounded.
In contrast to the previous two types, the BoundVector does have an impact on
the structure of the model in that it does require the start property to be
present. The metamodel defines the start property to be a symbolic pointer (an
IRI) and the model shown here lets it refer to the point defined in the previous
example.
A frame (of reference) in Euclidean space is an attachment point for orientation
or pose specifications. In
The model below exemplifies the frame "link1-joint1" which represents the
attachment point of "joint1" on the first link. Additionally, in this model we
chose to structurally represent the frame with the OriginVectorsXYZ type which
requires the origin property that points to the common start point of the
vectors and the three properties that represent the vectors themselves with the
names vector-x, vector-y and vector-z as defined by the type.
{
"@id": "rob:link1-joint1",
"@type": [ "3D", "Euclidean", "Frame", "RigidBody",
"Orthonormal", "RightHanded",
"OriginVectorsXYZ" ],
"origin": "rob:link1-joint1-origin",
"vector-x": "rob:link1-joint1-x",
"vector-y": "rob:link1-joint1-y",
"vector-z": "rob:link1-joint1-z"
}We notice that the OriginVectorsXYZ forces the names of the vectors to be x, y
and z. But this is just a choice, albeit a common one. Other conventions to
denominate the vectors are
Another objective of frames is to map geometric entities such as points or vectors to their coordinate representation i.e. they define coordinate systems as we will discuss below.
With the above geometric entities instantiated, we can now model the first part of a link: it is simply a collection of all those entities that are part of the link. In accordance with mathematics we call this composition structure a simplicial complex as illustrated in the following diagram (Figure 3).
 |
|---|
| Figure 3: Graphical illustration of a simplicial complex as a collection of simplicies |
In three dimensions it can consist of points, line segments, triangles ("2D frames") and tetrahedra ("3D frames") which are the 0-, 1-, 2- and 3-dimensional simplices, respectively. Since the simplicial complex is a transitive relation all constituents of the simplices will be part of the simplicial complex, too. The following model shows the simplicial complex associated with "link1".
{
"@id": "rob:link1",
"@type": [ "SimplicialComplex", "RigidBody" ],
"simplices": [
"rob:link1-root",
"rob:link1-joint1",
"rob:link1-joint1-origin",
"rob:link1-joint1-x",
"rob:link1-joint1-y",
"rob:link1-joint1-z"
]
}This example also imposes a rigid-body constraint on the simplicial complex to model that no relative motion occurs between any of the simplices, i.e. the material exhibits infinite stiffness. While not yet implemented here, our modelling approach is also open to support soft bodies where the relative motion between some or all simplices is described by constitutive equations that characterize mechanical material properties. The rigid-body is indeed one of the most simple constitutive equations.
The simplicial complex with a rigid-body constraint is commonly used to simplify numeric computations that solve the equations of motion for complex mechanisms because it enables a simplified representation of inertia. Such a lumped parameter representation will be attached to a link in the discussion of dynamics below.
The first type of "declarative" spatial relations defined in the spatial relations model represents the collinearity of two lines or rather vectors. Namely, the z-vectors of the "link1-joint" and "link2-root" frames. The reason for this constraint relation is that a revolute joint requires a common axis that is fixed to both rigid bodies and around which the rotation occurs. The following model exemplifies this constraint for "joint1".
{
"@id": "rob:joint1-common-axis",
"@type": "LineCollinearity",
"lines": [
"rob:link1-joint1-z",
"rob:link2-root-z"
]
}The second type of "imperative" spatial relations comprises the position, in its linear, angular and composite version as well as its first- and second-order time derivatives of velocity and acceleration, respectively. The following diagram (Figure 4) depicts the three pose relations (i.e. the composition of positions and orientations represented as an arrow with a solid head) that are of interest in the kinematic chain example.
 |
|---|
| Figure 4: Pose relations attached to the skeleton |
The lower-left pose crosses the link, the lower-right pose crosses the joint and
the upper pose is the composition of the two previous poses. The following model
exemplifies the textual representation of the former pose. A pose relates two
frames which we call the of frame and the with-respect-to frame. An
additional property of every position-based spatial relation is the quantity
kind as used in dimensional analysis. Here, we reuse the
QUDT ontology to represent quantity kinds. For any pose
there will always be two quantity kinds, namely the Angle to represent the
orientation part of the pose and the Length to represent the position part.
{
"@id": "rob:pose-link1-joint1-wrt-link1-root",
"@type": "Pose",
"of": "rob:link1-joint1",
"with-respect-to": "rob:link1-root",
"quantity-kind": [ "Angle", "Length" ]
}A pose is sufficient to describe the relative position of any two points that belong to two different rigid bodies. Hence, even if the pose only relates two frames it follows that it also characterizes the pose between the rigid bodies (or simplicial complices) that those frames are a part of.
By separating the pose from the frames which it relates, we enable a modeller to associate multiple poses with a frame. This is a more faithful representation of poses than treating them as properties of frames as is often found in state-of-the-art modelling approaches. However, it also allows creating cycles of poses. Whenever such a situation occurs, the poses accumulated along each path in the cycle must be consistent. While we have chosen the pose as an example, all arguments in this paragraph hold for any spatial relation.
To perform computations a numeric representation of the spatial relations is required as shown in the model for Cartesian coordinates.
The following example shows the coordinates for the pose across the "link1". Since that pose remains static, its coordinates can be provided during the robot's design, for example, by a robot manufacturer. For poses across motion constraints such as joints the concrete coordinate values will most likely only be available during the robot's runtime and will be acquired by some sensor.
{
"@id": "rob:pose-link1-joint1-wrt-link1-root-coord",
"@type": [ "3D", "Euclidean", "PoseReference",
"PoseCoordinate", "DirectionCosineXYZ",
"VectorXYZ" ],
"of-pose": "rob:pose-link1-joint1-wrt-link1-root",
"as-seen-by": "rob:link1-root",
"unit": [ "UNITLESS", "M" ],
"direction-cosine-x": [ 0.0, 0.0, 1.0 ],
"direction-cosine-y": [ 0.0, 1.0, 0.0 ],
"direction-cosine-z": [ 1.0, 0.0, 0.0 ],
"x": 1.0,
"y": 2.0,
"z": 3.0
}The model represents Cartesian coordinates, hence the Euclidean type.
Moreover, it references the previously defined pose relation via the of-pose
property as required by the PoseReference structural constraint. A different
option (not shown in the example) is to directly embed the coordinate
representation into the pose relation. This, however, is in general not
advisable because the same physical pose can be represented by an infinite
amount of coordinate representations, i.e. spatial relations are properties of
coordinate representations but not vice versa. The next property required by any
coordinate representation is the coordinate system that the spatial relation is
measured or expressed in as represented by the as-seen-by symbolic pointer.
Additionally, coordinates must be accompanied by a unit of measurement which
must conform to and complements the quantity kind in the spatial relation.
Finally, in the model above we choose to represent the pose by three direction
cosines, the columns of the rotation matrix, and a vector with the entries named
as x, y and z.
A wide range of coordinate representations of positions, orientations and poses exist such as cylindrical, spherical or projective/homogeneous coordinates, all of which require their own model and metamodel representations. Similarly, velocity and acceleration representations demand for further metamodels. Discussing those metamodels, however, is out of scope for this document.
The equations of motion for mechanical systems are of second-order, i.e. the Newton-Euler equations for a rigid body relate acceleration and force via the body's inertia. Hence, for solving those equations a specification of the inertia is required as shown in the dynamics model.
The following diagram (Figure 5) graphically represents three types of inertia
attachments: a point mass
 |
|---|
| Figure 5: Different inertia attachments |
The textual model below gives an example of an inertia attachment to the second
link in the kinematic chain. The so-called rigid-body inertia composes linear
inertia (mass) and rotational inertia into the same model. While this inertia
specification is attached to a rigid body via the of-body property we chose to
merge the coordinate-free representation with the coordinates. The
coordinate-free version of rotational inertia requires a reference-point
property and an invariant quantity-kind of MomentOfInertia. Here, the
coordinates are then expressed in units of as-seen-by frame that references the second link's root frame and plays the
role of a coordinate system. Three properties, namely xx, yy and zz
represent the concrete values. A similar representation is used for mass, it is
just independent of a reference point or coordinate frame.
{
"@id": "rob:link2-inertia",
"@type": [ "RigidBodyInertia", "Mass",
"RotationalInertia",
"PrincipalMomentsOfInertiaXYZ" ],
"of-body": "rob:link2",
"reference-point": "rob:link2-root-origin",
"as-seen-by": "rob:link2-root",
"quantity-kind": [ "MomentOfInertia", "Mass" ],
"unit": [ "KiloGM-M2", "KiloGM" ],
"xx": 0.1,
"yy": 0.1,
"zz": 0.1,
"mass": 1.0
}The kinematic chain model shows two types of motion
constraints. The joint is the simplest motion constraint between attachments
such as frames on two bodies. In the following example we recognize this by the
between-attachments property. More specifically the joint is a revolute joint
as already mentioned before. Hence, two more properties are required: the
common-axis around which the relative motion occurs and the origin-offset
that defines the distance or position of the two frames' origins along the
common axis.
{
"@id": "rob:joint1",
"@type": [ "Joint", "RevoluteJoint" ],
"between-attachments": [
"rob:link1-joint1",
"rob:link2-root"
],
"common-axis": "rob:joint1-common-axis",
"origin-offset": "rob:joint1-offset"
}The kinematic chain is a composite motion constraint with a set of joints as its property as seen below. For the 1-DoF example obviously only one joint is required. The kinematic chain imposes a semantic constraint that all referenced joints must be part of the same graph.
{
"@id": "rob:kin-chain1",
"@type": "KinematicChain",
"joints": [ "rob:joint1" ]
}For a real robot the joint configuration can often, but not always, be directly acquired from sensors such as encoders associated with a joint. The model of such a sensor would be a higher-order relation that refers to the same attachments that are also used by the joint. In this tutorial however, we rely on a fixed value to represent the joint position as realized by the joint coordinates model.
Most modelling approaches for kinematic chains stop with a structural model similar to what we have discussed up to now. Such a model would then be interpreted by software to configure a solver for kinematics or dynamics queries. Hence, the source code of that software describes the kinematic chain's behaviour.
In contrast, here we also establish an explicit model of such behaviour.
This model exemplifies a behavioural model of a
simple forward position kinematics algorithm. To this end it employs two
operators. The ForwardPositionKinematics for a single joint, as shown in the
following textual representation, requires two input properties, namely a model
of the joint and the joint-space-motion as discussed in the context of the
kinematic chain. Given those two inputs, the operator
computes the cartesian-space-motion as output which here is a symbolic pointer
to a pose relation.
{
"@id": "rob:fpk1",
"@type": "ForwardPositionKinematics",
"joint": "rob:joint1",
"joint-space-motion": "rob:q1",
"cartesian-space-motion": "rob:pose-link2-root-wrt-link1-joint1"
}The second operator, ComposePose, composes the pose over the first link and
the pose over the joint, the latter of which is computed by the forward position
kinematics operator above. This results in the relative pose of the most
distal frame "link1-root" with respect to the most proximal frame "link0-root".
Both of the previous operators describe what to compute. However, the order of
those computations is still missing: clearly, the forward position kinematics
must be evaluated before the composition of the poses as there exists a data
dependency between both of them. We call the model of such an ordered
computation a Schedule. A schedule has an ordered list of symbolic pointers to
the individual operators in the trigger-chain property. The model below shows
the schedule for the full forward kinematics algorithm.
{
"@id": "rob:schedule1",
"@type": "Schedule",
"trigger-chain": [ "rob:fpk1", "rob:compose-pose1" ]
}In this tutorial we have discussed how to build composable models for robots. Specifically, the tutorial has focused on the description of a kinematic chain's structure, including geometry, dynamics and motion constraints, as well as its behaviour in terms of a kinematics algorithm. While the example is a simple 1-DoF kinematic chain the concepts transfer to more complex chains with tree structures or parallel structures and more complex algorithms such as solvers for problems involving velocities, accelerations or dynamics.
While we have discussed how to construct the models, we have not described why they are composable. We consider the following points as core contributors towards composability:
- The first class comprises the structure of models and metamodels:
- Every model has an identifier, the
@id, and hence can be referenced from other models. In other words every model is reified. The reification of relations enables higher-order relations and indeed the majority of models are actually higher-order composition structures. - The identifiers in the form of symbolic pointers also contribute to the loose coupling of models: symbolic pointers do not impose type constraints and additionally they separate the specification of the symbolic pointer from it resolution.
- In contrast to the more common, human-facing domain-specific languages (DSL), composable models appear in some sense inverted. DSLs frequently feature a single top-level concept (with vagues or sometimes even ambiguous names such as "package" or "document"). Then any further concept must be placed somewhere hierarchically below that top-level concept. As a consequence any change to the lower concepts propagates up in the hierarchy, meaning that the whole metamodel must be developed in lock-step. Once all changes are incorporated a new version of the language can be released. In contrast, composable models are not restricted towards the "top". Metamodels can originate from diverse sources that can remain loosely coupled and developed independently.
- Every model has an identifier, the
- A further contributor is the conscious design of models and metamodels,
often following established best practices:
- Good metamodels should be normalized, as in database normalization, which means that they separate domain concepts as much as possible and leave no implicit assumptions both in the structure and in the meaning of the involved terminology. As a result, a model should specify exactly what is required, neither more nor less.
- Closely related to the normalization is the clear separation of (intrinsic) properties and (extrinsic) attributes. The former should be part of models whereas the latter are usually better represented as (reified) relations.
- In most models above we have already seen the utility of
multi-conformance, i.e. a model can conform to more than one constraint as
imposed by a single type. Most state-of-the-art modelling approaches support
only single conformance of models to metamodels. That means a model has a
single type and all the model’s properties are defined in a single
metamodel. To emulate behaviour similar to multi-conformance, those
approaches rely on subsumption (
is-a) relations on the metamodel level.
- Finally, a key feature of composable models is the open-world assumption:
- For composable models there does not exist the global schema to check for well-formedness. Instead, it is up to the tools to decide which structural constraints they must enforce or check. For example, a simple viewer may treat joints as primitives in its context while a code generator most likely requires knowledge about the types of joints. Implementation-wise the SHACL W3C standard nicely complements this effort by supporting composable well-formedness constraints.
- Recall that multiple entities like coordinate, shape or inertia representations can be attached to a kinematic chain. But it is not the decision of the kinematic chain model to "close the world", i.e. to decide which of those representations to use in a specific context. Instead, this decision is left to some higher-order or application-level model.
- When multiple JSON objects have the same
@idthey all refer to the same entity. Hence, a model can be logically separated. Note that we have not made use of this feature here.
This work is part of a project that has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme SESAME under grant agreement No 101017258.
