Robot Catalogue Acceptance: Give Every Number Its Unit

A robot catalogue can display neatly aligned numbers while leaving their meaning unclear. A column headed travel, for example, does not tell a receiving editor whether the value is a length, an angle or an informal description. Before accepting a catalogue import, ask whether a reader can identify the quantity and unit attached to each numerical field. This article develops an editorial acceptance check using a hypothetical submission; it contains no real robot specifications or calculated conversion results.

Begin with the quantity, not the spreadsheet formatting

Ask the contributor what the field describes before discussing how many decimal places should appear. A quantity definition should make the intended property recognizable to a later reader. The field's unit then explains how a numerical value expresses that property. A display format is a separate choice. Aligning cells, adding a symbol to a heading or changing a number's appearance cannot resolve an undefined property.

A practical review sheet can ask three questions for each selected field: what is being described, what unit does the source use, and where is that convention documented? These are proposed editorial questions rather than a universal database schema. The contributor may use a different structure, provided the agreed meaning can still be recovered. Avoid treating a familiar column label as an answer when its source definition is absent.

The NIST overview of SI units describes a system with base and derived units associated with physical quantities. It supplies terminology for distinguishing a quantity from its unit. It does not validate the contents of a robot catalogue, identify a particular machine's operating limits or certify a contributor's conversion. Those claims require evidence relevant to the actual entry.

Find the declared convention and its exceptions

Some software ecosystems publish conventions that help contributors communicate consistently. ROS REP 103 states an SI convention for ROS and asks that departures be justified and documented. This is useful context when a submission explicitly claims to follow that convention. It is not a reason to silently impose the same interpretation on every commercial data sheet or every historical file.

For an acceptance review, request the convention actually used by the submitted material. If the publisher supplies an exception, associate it with the affected field rather than leaving it in an unrelated email. If two sources disagree, keep both source descriptions visible until the responsible contributor explains the conflict. Selecting the convention the editor expected to see would turn an assumption into a falsely authoritative catalogue entry.

Ask for a conversion trail without overwriting the source

Where the delivery includes normalized values, retain a way to distinguish the original representation from the transformed one. Ask who supplied the transformation, which field it affects and which unit appears in the delivered output. The acceptance task is to check whether that explanation can be followed. It is not permission to change operational parameters on equipment or a claim that a transformation has been independently validated.

In the hypothetical submission, the receiving editor notices that a heading has changed while the underlying value appears unchanged. Several explanations are possible, including a relabelled display or an incomplete transformation. Record the observation and request clarification. Do not choose an explanation from appearance alone. Preserve the submitted file while the question is investigated, so later discussion refers to the same evidence rather than an editor's amended copy.

Give missing units an explicit disposition

A blank unit deserves its own unresolved status. Do not fill the cell using the most common convention from neighbouring records. That may make a catalogue look complete while removing the distinction between published information and editorial inference. If the contributor cannot supply a unit, the agreed publication policy should decide whether to withhold the value, publish a clearly qualified entry or request a replacement submission.

This policy should be visible before a bulk import proceeds. A reviewer can document the affected field, source location, clarification request and current disposition. There is no need to invent a numeric tolerance merely to finish the check. A delivery can be structurally readable while a subset of its values remains unsuitable for an unqualified public description.

Finish with field-level conclusions

Record which quantities and units have been explained, which transformations have supporting material and which questions remain open. Receiving a convention document does not mean every row has been checked. Similarly, finding an ambiguous field does not prove that all other values are wrong. The conclusion should preserve these differences so the next editor can continue from the actual stopping point.

The illustrations are original question maps without model numbers or measured results. Further catalogue topics appear in our robot data collection, with related writing in the article directory. Use this check to improve the transparency of a submitted catalogue, not to infer a robot's performance from a cleaner table or to replace manufacturer-specific technical review.