On Thursday 28 August 2008 13:42:33 Herman Bruyninckx wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Alexis Maldonado wrote:
> > I am working in a summer school in Italy, and had the good luck of
> > meeting Ruben Smits. We are using KDL to model the arm of a small
> > humanoid robot (iCub) and we received the description using DH
> > parameters.
> >
> > After trying them on KDL, I found out that the DH method in the Frame
> > class was really using modified DH parameters (as described by John J.
> > Craig in his book: Introduction to Robotics), but they were referring to
> > them as the 'classic' DH parameters.
> >
> > To avoid confusion in the future, here is a patch that changes the name
> > of the previous DH method to mDH, and adds a new DH method that accepts
> > the 'classical' DH parameters.
> >
> > Note: If you are using the DH method to describe your Frames, you must
> > switch your code to use mDH instead!
> >
> > I hope this is useful!
>
> Adjectives such as "new", "classical" or "modified" are meaningless to most
> people, especially in a project that wants to serve users in lots of
> different communities. So, while I agree with your observation that
> multiple versions of DH parameters exist, I suggest that you rather add a
> unambiguous adjective to them, such as, for example:
> - "DH_Craig1989" if you refer to the definition described in the 1989
> version of Craig's book.

I agree with this one, DH_Craig1989 is more specific then mDH.

> - "DH_1955" if you refer to the original ("classical"? :-)) definition as
> given in
> Denavit, J. and Hartenberg, R. S.
> A kinematic notation for lower-pair mechanisms based on matrices
> ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 23:215-221, 1955.

I would call this just DH because it's an abbreviation of the original authors
names of these parameters and it is widely accepted.

Off course we should put these references in the doxygen information.

Ruben