You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The current proposal for PCIM as a "happy path" has a Reporter, Manager, and Consumer in the ecosystem that it would be used in. There may be situations where there are actors who can report association assertions, and actors who can consume association assertions, but the facility does not have a manager on site to handle these assertions.
Describe the solution you'd like
If it was a supported workflow in the standard to allow reporters to directly communicate to consumers (only in the absence of a manager), we could still reap some benefits of PCIM even with the missing value of the manager.
Describe alternatives you've considered
The alternative would be telling customers/facilities that they need to have all three actors in the equation to make use of PCIM functionality.
Additional context
Epic, as an example, doesn't want to handle all of the responsibilities of a manager, but can still handle some of the logic a manager does, but solely wants to be a "reporter" in PCIM lingo. Pump vendors could still receive DEV-51 messages or maybe DEV-51-as-a-52? Haha.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The current proposal for PCIM as a "happy path" has a Reporter, Manager, and Consumer in the ecosystem that it would be used in. There may be situations where there are actors who can report association assertions, and actors who can consume association assertions, but the facility does not have a manager on site to handle these assertions.
Describe the solution you'd like
If it was a supported workflow in the standard to allow reporters to directly communicate to consumers (only in the absence of a manager), we could still reap some benefits of PCIM even with the missing value of the manager.
Describe alternatives you've considered
The alternative would be telling customers/facilities that they need to have all three actors in the equation to make use of PCIM functionality.
Additional context
Epic, as an example, doesn't want to handle all of the responsibilities of a manager, but can still handle some of the logic a manager does, but solely wants to be a "reporter" in PCIM lingo. Pump vendors could still receive DEV-51 messages or maybe DEV-51-as-a-52? Haha.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: