Hi BrainFlow maintainers,
URML (urml.dev) is a small open language for describing robot intent. A user writes an English instruction; URML translates it to a primitive, validates it against the robot's declared capabilities, then dispatches. One thing URML wants to declare in that manifest is a non-language intent source: a brain-computer-interface signal coming in over BrainFlow, gated by a confidence threshold, that triggers a URML behavior. Apache-2.0 on URML's side, no spec change to BrainFlow proposed, nothing for you to maintain.
One real question. URML's manifest needs a single field that says "this deployment can accept BCI intent over BrainFlow." What grain is most useful from your side: just naming BrainFlow as the substrate, or naming the board class (Cyton, Ganglion, OpenBCI EEG-Cap, etc.), or going to the per-channel level with impedance and filter state? URML defaults to the substrate level for v0.1 and treats per-channel as a future extension, but we want to anchor that decision on what you'd recommend.
Full write-up if useful: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0230-openbci-brainflow-outreach.md
Thanks for keeping BrainFlow vendor-neutral and open.
Ido Yahalomi (URML, greenvh@gmail.com)
AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.
Hi BrainFlow maintainers,
URML (urml.dev) is a small open language for describing robot intent. A user writes an English instruction; URML translates it to a primitive, validates it against the robot's declared capabilities, then dispatches. One thing URML wants to declare in that manifest is a non-language intent source: a brain-computer-interface signal coming in over BrainFlow, gated by a confidence threshold, that triggers a URML behavior. Apache-2.0 on URML's side, no spec change to BrainFlow proposed, nothing for you to maintain.
One real question. URML's manifest needs a single field that says "this deployment can accept BCI intent over BrainFlow." What grain is most useful from your side: just naming BrainFlow as the substrate, or naming the board class (Cyton, Ganglion, OpenBCI EEG-Cap, etc.), or going to the per-channel level with impedance and filter state? URML defaults to the substrate level for v0.1 and treats per-channel as a future extension, but we want to anchor that decision on what you'd recommend.
Full write-up if useful: https://github.com/URML-MARS/URML/blob/main/docs/rfcs/0230-openbci-brainflow-outreach.md
Thanks for keeping BrainFlow vendor-neutral and open.
Ido Yahalomi (URML, greenvh@gmail.com)
AI-assisted prose, maintainer-reviewed before posting (see VIBE.md). Human-only correspondence available on request.