Hi NATURE stack maintainers,
URML (urml.dev) is a small, Apache-2.0 language for robot intent: an intent becomes a typed primitive, validated against the robot's declared capabilities and a safety envelope, then dispatched. The NATURE stack handles off-road autonomous navigation over unstructured terrain, and URML is interesting at the intent layer above it.
Nothing here asks the project to adopt, host, or maintain anything. This is a request for comment.
The mapping: off-road navigation has hard operating bounds (slope, traversability, standoff). URML expresses the goal plus those bounds as a safety envelope, validates the intent against the platform's declared capabilities, then consumes the path the stack plans. The stack keeps ownership of terrain reasoning and planning. The contribution is a typed, declarative statement of where the vehicle is allowed to operate, checked before the planner commits.
Two real questions: (1) is a typed, validated intent layer (goal + off-road operating bounds, validated, then consume the path) useful above an off-road stack? (2) Does URML's safety-envelope model map onto how off-road operating bounds like slope and traversability are expressed?
Full write-up: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0562-nature-stack-outreach.md
Thanks for the NATURE stack; unstructured terrain is where an explicit, typed operating envelope is hardest and most worth having.
Ido Yahalomi (URML, greenvh@gmail.com)
AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.
Hi NATURE stack maintainers,
URML (urml.dev) is a small, Apache-2.0 language for robot intent: an intent becomes a typed primitive, validated against the robot's declared capabilities and a safety envelope, then dispatched. The NATURE stack handles off-road autonomous navigation over unstructured terrain, and URML is interesting at the intent layer above it.
Nothing here asks the project to adopt, host, or maintain anything. This is a request for comment.
The mapping: off-road navigation has hard operating bounds (slope, traversability, standoff). URML expresses the goal plus those bounds as a safety envelope, validates the intent against the platform's declared capabilities, then consumes the path the stack plans. The stack keeps ownership of terrain reasoning and planning. The contribution is a typed, declarative statement of where the vehicle is allowed to operate, checked before the planner commits.
Two real questions: (1) is a typed, validated intent layer (goal + off-road operating bounds, validated, then consume the path) useful above an off-road stack? (2) Does URML's safety-envelope model map onto how off-road operating bounds like slope and traversability are expressed?
Full write-up: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0562-nature-stack-outreach.md
Thanks for the NATURE stack; unstructured terrain is where an explicit, typed operating envelope is hardest and most worth having.
Ido Yahalomi (URML, greenvh@gmail.com)
AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.