# Announcing the Hardware Robot Information Model (HRIM)

**URL:** <https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/announcing-the-hardware-robot-information-model-hrim/3906>\
**Category:** ROS General\
**Tags:** ros2\
**Created:** [February 7, 2018, 11:04am UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/announcing-the-hardware-robot-information-model-hrim/3906 "2018-02-07T11:04:43Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbiggs](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/gbiggs/32/30361_2.png) [@gbiggs](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/gbiggs)\
**Post date:** [February 7, 2018, 7:57pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/announcing-the-hardware-robot-information-model-hrim/3906/4 "2018-02-07T19:57:45Z")

</div>

> [@vmayoral](#):
>
> What we claim is that HRIM has been presented and introduced to the experts pushing the ongoing standard. We received feedback already from several of those experts and our hope is that we can inspire some additional content on the working document which currently, IMHO, lacks of software abstractions that facilitate interoperability.

Sorry, I misread your post.

Unfortunately, based on this week I don’t think that 22166-1 is going to go in the direction you and I desire.

> [@vmayoral](#):
>
> Taking into account these aspects, we believe that claiming conformance is valid but probably, stating that we’re on the path to conform (formally) with HAL4RT 2.0 is more correct since as you point out, (HAL4RT 2.0) isn’t official yet.

> [@vmayoral](#):
>
> I’m not really sure we agree on this. Could you mention which sections make you think this way?

OK, after reading that document I understand how you are looking at HAL4RT. I looked at the interfaces you have and I do not think you are correct to claim conformance with HAL4RT 2.0. You can claim that you correlate on capabilities with HAL4RT 2.0, but to conform you would need to have identical interfaces, which you do not. You have similar capabilities (as well as significantly extended capabilities) but you do not match the model defined by HAL4RT 2.0. Which I think is a good thing because your model is significantly better for our needs, in my opinion.

> [@vmayoral](#):
>
> This is likely the claim I can defend the least since most of the information we found is in Japanese and it was a tremendously hard task to understand it right. In fact, although we looked into it, we were not going to mention anything about it however, a few days ago I got the following from Kenichi:
> 
> At this time, OpenEL 3.0 and HAL4RT 2.0 are almost the same.
> 
> So there is no document for OpenEL 3.0 in English now.
> 
> Everything we saw (and understood), make us think this way as well so on this basis, we included that sentence.

OK, on that basis if you feel confident then you could claim correlation with OpenEL 3.0 (I wouldn’t claim compliance with something I hadn’t seen; “almost the same” is not the same as “identical”). I wouldn’t claim it’s an international standard, though.

If you want help with the Japanese, feel free to ask. 🙂

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/announcing-the-hardware-robot-information-model-hrim/3906)._