URML (open robot intent language): validated intent published on eCAL

[idoco2003]

Hi eCAL team,

URML (urml.dev) is a small open language (Apache-2.0) for robot intent: English in, a validated primitive out, dispatched only after a capability check. URML is substrate-neutral, so eCAL is a first-class transport for it, not a special case: a validated URML intent publishes on an eCAL topic exactly as it would on DDS. Apache-2.0 on both sides, nothing for you to maintain.

One real question: what grain is most useful for a URML manifest to declare eCAL as the deployment transport, and could it align with the eCAL monitoring/registry view of topics and types?

Full write-up if useful: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0309-ecal-outreach.md

Thanks for the open pub/sub work.

Ido Yahalomi (URML, greenvh@gmail.com)

AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.

[KerstinKeller]

Hi @idoco2003, interesting project!
For me, however, it's not quite clear what you will need from our side. Templates on what code actually needs to be generated? I am not sure what you mean by "grain".

[idoco2003]

Thanks @KerstinKeller, and sorry for the jargon, "grain" was a bad word on my part. Plainly: I don't need anything built on the eCAL side, and no code generation. URML is just a publisher, it sends a validated command as a message on an eCAL topic, so eCAL is simply one of the transports it can dispatch over (alongside DDS, MQTT, and so on).

The only thing I was asking: what should a URML config file record to describe an eCAL deployment so it dispatches correctly? At minimum the topic name(s) and the message type it publishes on. Is that the right and complete set, or is there anything else about an eCAL setup (for example, how you'd recommend naming topics/types) worth capturing? That's the whole question. Thanks for the friendly read.