Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Robotics needs a W3C

By | September 9, 2010, 6:27am PDT

Summary: Robotics needs a free, open source, universal platform on which to build. We need compatibility among the various open source projects now seeking programmer loyalty. We need a clubhouse in which to meet, a center, a base.

Willow Garage’s move to sell copies of its PR2 to the public at $400,000 (discounts of up to 30% available to researchers) is being hailed as a turning point in the industry’s development. (Image from Willow Garage.)

That’s because, unlike most Japanese robots, which are either purpose-built or one-offs, and unlike iRobot (which despite its name is a cleaner and military contracting company), the PR2 is built from an open source software base, with modular hardware.

Willow Garage is not the only open source base on which to build a robot. Urbi went open source last month, with a C++ library and an API. CARMEN is Carnegie-Mellon’s open source robotics toolkit. Orocos also offers an open source platform for robotic control.

It’s clear, then, that such PC ideas as standards and open platforms are starting to pick up in the robotics industry, which until now has been proprietary, military, industrial and (frankly) a little inaccessible to the computing mainstream.

So what does the industry need now? I would suggest it needs an organization coordinating standards, providing compatibility among the various open source offerings, a base on which everyone can grow and develop.

Something like the World Wide Web Consortium.

The W3C has come in for its share of criticism, in the 16 years since the Web was spun. Its standards process moves slowly. Google’s bouncing balls, demonstrating HTML5 and CSS, were meant to speed up an adoption cycle that threatens to drag on another decade.

But the group does serve a purpose. It provides a base. Everything built up from the base refers back to the base. There are differences in how browsers render web pages, but these are minor because the base remains intact. Everyone building web pages innovates from a base of W3C standards.

Robotics needs a base.

Robotics needs a free, open source, universal platform on which to build. We need compatibility among the various open source projects now seeking programmer loyalty. We need a clubhouse in which to meet, a center, a base.

Anyone know how to build one? (Cough, cough, JimZemlin, hack. Excuse me.)

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Talkback Most Recent of 6 Talkback(s)

  • RE: Robotics needs a W3C
    And W3C needs robots!! Maybe we can do an in-kind exchange. happy

    More seriously, W3C would be happy to host conversations about the intersection between robots and Web technology.

    Ian Jacobs, Head of W3C Communications
    ZDNet Gravatar
    ianbjacobs
    9th Sep 2010
  • RE: Robotics needs a W3C
    @ianbjacobs I hadn't thought of that. Thanks. Maybe you can start with Google's robot.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DanaBlankenhorn
    9th Sep 2010
  • RE: Robotics needs a W3C
    Very interesting aspect, I share this view. The only but major difference to the web consortium will be the higher technologically complexity you're faced to when looking at robotics: instead of establishing just protocols and standards for the packaging of information, when harmonising robotics you'll have to consider headlines like artificial intelligence and computing architectures. Both will dramatically change in the next years and decades. Definition of standards above abstraction layers would perhaps work somehow with the computing aspect, but not with AI: the changes we can expect will be too deep. A robotics W3C could help with a lot of issues but we should be aware of freezing development at today's essential concepts. This would perhaps speed up product development but simultaneously slow down deeper innovation. Nikolai Ensslen, Synapticon, Germany
    ZDNet Gravatar
    whte_rbt
    9th Sep 2010
  • RE: Robotics needs a W3C
    @whte_rbt Absolutely. You make excellent points. Thanks for writing.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DanaBlankenhorn
    9th Sep 2010
  • RE: Robotics needs a W3C
    JAUS, now an SAE standard, provides architecture guidance for unmanned systems.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    tpatten1
    11th Sep 2010
  • RE: Robotics needs a W3C
    I mean if you are going to make this program (Facetime) for your phones and slates to use VOIP Video/Audio over 3G/4G radios, don't you think..
    Hava Perdeleri
    Hava Perdesi
    Hava Perdesi Fiyatlari

    Hava Perdeleri
    Hava Perdesi Fiyatlari
    Hava Perdesi

    Hava Perdesi Fiyatlari
    Hava Perdesi
    Hava Perdeleri

    Hava Perdesi Fiyatlari
    Hava Perdesi
    Hava Perdeleri
    you should be smart enough to put parts in that can actually support Next Gen Technologies like VOIP over 3G/4G wireless. And how about Dual Band WiFi Direct w/DLNA support and putting hardware with BlueTooth 3.0 built into them? How about actually putting the FM Transceiver in those chips to work for your customers inside your OS (like Android 3.0 will do). Broadcom has done that....

    Hava Perdesi Fiyatlari
    Hava Perdesi
    Hava Perdeleri
    isitma sogutma

    Hava Perdesi Fiyatlari
    Hava Perdesi
    Hava Perdeleri
    isitma sogutma

    ingilterede dil egitimi
    ingilterede ingilizce
    ingilterede dil okullari
    Londra dil okullari
    ingilterede sertifika programlari

    ingilterede master
    ingilterede yuksek lisans
    ingilterede egitim
    ingilterede universite
    ingilterede mba
    ingilterede sertifika programlari
    because they are another company that has seen the light and ease of becoming a part of what that Open Source Future means by doing it themselves directly.... faster! .....that's why ARM got involved and wrote support directly into Android for their Neon Engine to take advantage of Face Recognition and Smile Detection along with other features Apple doesn't have, with the same chip hardware (or the old cheap last gen junk they opted for
    ZDNet Gravatar
    demetgelinlik
    23rd Sep

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources