Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| en:safeav:as:refarchitectures [2025/10/17 09:19] – [ROS and ROS 2 Framework] agrisnik | en:safeav:as:refarchitectures [2025/10/17 09:21] (current) – [MOOS-IvP Architecture for Marine Systems] agrisnik | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| All of the mentioned allow an asynchronous behaviour-based response to a changing environment and higher flexibility, | All of the mentioned allow an asynchronous behaviour-based response to a changing environment and higher flexibility, | ||
| + | ===== Comparative Summary of Reference Architectures ===== | ||
| + | ^ Architecture ^ Domain ^ Key Features ^ Communication Model ^ | ||
| + | | ROS / ROS 2 | General / Research | Modular, open-source, | ||
| + | | AUTOSAR Adaptive | Automotive | Safety, real-time, standardised | Service-oriented (SOME/IP, DDS) | | ||
| + | | JAUS | Defence / Multi-domain | Interoperability, | ||
| + | | MOOS-IvP | Marine | Behaviour-based, | ||
| + | |||
| + | Recent trends combine multiple reference architectures to exploit their strengths. For example: | ||
| + | * **ROS–AUTOSAR** bridges enable integration between experimental and production-grade systems. | ||
| + | * **DDS–MQTT** hybrids connect real-time robotics with cloud-based IoT analytics. | ||
| + | * **ROS–MOOS** integrations allow cross-domain cooperation between underwater and surface robots ((Petillot, Y., et al. (2020). Underwater robotics: Hybrid autonomy and AI integration. Annual Reviews in Control, 50, 238–254)). | ||
| + | Such hybridization reflects the growing need for flexibility and cross-domain interoperability in modern autonomous systems. | ||
