[x3d-public] joint float[3] fields

[Brutzman, Donald (Don) (CIV)]

[copy HAnim mailing list]

Thanks for your scrutiny and report.

Prior review agreed with your assessment.  Documented at

* http://www.web3d.org/member-only/mantis/view.php?id=774 (ulimit and llimit)
* http://www.web3d.org/member-only/mantis/view.php?id=775 (stiffness)

Double-checking X3D XML schema showed that this was applied in September 2018.
Double-checking X3D XML DTD found the change not applied but mistakenly logged.  Corrected and checked in.

* http://www.web3d.org/specifications

Double-checking HAnim v2.0 FDIS specification on github shows that type has been correctly recorded as float[3] for each.

* https://github.com/x3d/HumanoidAnimation

* Humanoid Animation version 2.0 part I: Architecture, FDIS (draft JAN 2019)
   http://www.web3d.org/sites/default/files/attachment/node/2326/edit/ISO-IEC%2019774-1%20V2.0%20FDIS.Web3D_0.zip

* Humanoid Animation version 2.0 part II: Motion Animation, FDIS (draft JAN 2019)
   http://www.web3d.org/sites/default/files/attachment/node/2326/edit/ISO-IEC%2019774-2%20V2.0%20FDIS.Web3D_0.zip

Review of X3D v4.0 draft specification confirms that we have not updated that component yet.  I expect we will tackle that once current implementation efforts by Joe and I are complete to update X3D v4 XML Schema, DTD, X3DUOM and X3DJSAIL.  This work is being reported and reviewed using HAnim mailing list.

* http://www.web3d.org/working-groups/humanoid-animation-h-anim

As ever, these validation tools deploy as part of our QA efforts to avoid GIGO.

	X3D Resources: Quality Assurance (QA)
	http://www.web3d.org/x3d/content/examples/X3dResources.html#QualityAssurance

Having fun with HAnim 2.0!  8)


On 6/30/2018 8:17 AM, Andreas Plesch wrote:
> http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19775-1/V3.3/Part01/components/hanim.html#HAnimJoint
> 
> has a number of MFFloat type fields:
> 
> llimit
> ulimit
> stiffness
> 
> These particular fields have a float[3] signature at the the HAnim
> joint interface definition at:
> 
> http://www.web3d.org/documents/specifications/19774-1/V2.0/HAnim/ObjectInterfaces.html#Joint
> 
> A SFVec3f signature in place of MFFloat in the abstract x3d definition
> would therefore allow for tighter validation.
> 
> But there may be good reasons why MFFloat was preferred. One reason
> may be that these fields could not be considered geometrical vectors
> while implementation would typically provide SFVec3f methods which
> then would not make sense to use for these fields. Are there other
> reasons ?
> 
> Nevertheless, it seems to me that a SFVec3f signature may be a better
> fit for these fields, since validation benefits would outweigh
> application concerns.
> 
> -Andreas
> 


all the best, Don
-- 
Don Brutzman  Naval Postgraduate School, Code USW/Br       brutzman at nps.edu
Watkins 270,  MOVES Institute, Monterey CA 93943-5000 USA   +1.831.656.2149
X3D graphics, virtual worlds, navy robotics http://faculty.nps.edu/brutzman