>>> [!note] Migrated issue <!-- Drupal.org comment --> <!-- Migrated from issue #3272871. --> Reported by: [jurgenhaas](https://www.drupal.org/user/168924) >>> <h3 id="summary-problem-motivation">Problem/Motivation</h3> <p>We have some naming inconsistencies between BPMN.iO and what we use in Drupal so far. Here is a list of the main components and what they are called in BPMN.iO:</p> <p><img src="https://www.drupal.org/files/issues/2022-04-01/2022-04-01_11-01.png" alt=""></p> <p>The whole thing is called a <strong>Process</strong> and the building blocks are:</p> <ol> <li>Sequence? - I don't know what that's called but I'd like to define a name for that.</li> <li>Event</li> <li>Sequence Flow</li> <li>Task</li> </ol> <p>What BPMN.IO calls "Process" is currently called "Model" in ECA/Drupal.</p> <p>"Event" is similar, that's OK.</p> <p>"Sequence Flow" is OK, that can have a condition or not, there is no naming conflict at all.</p> <p>"Task" is what we tend to call "Action" in ECA/Drupal, but we could also conclude, that a task in the process is what executes an action.</p> <p>In our team meeting yesterday, we open this issue to change the label "Process" into "Model" and "Task" into "Action". But before we do that, we may want to think about that again. Maybe, it's the better choice to adjust our Drupal terminology and switch over to what BPMN.iO uses?</p> <p>The reason I'm asking this now is because of several reasons:</p> <ul> <li>This is the domain of the modeller. Maybe BPMN specific or generic - but certainly not a Drupal domain.</li> <li>When we link to Camunda and BPMN.iO documentation, their text and screenshots will use their terms, not ours.</li> <li>When ECA users head over to BPMN.iO issue queues, their forum or other discussions, they will probably cause confusion, when they use Drupal specific terminology instead of BPMN terminology.</li> </ul> <p>Those arguments seem strong reasons to change our terminology to what BPMN.iO uses instead of changing their labels. But as that terminology swaps over into ECA as well, I wonder on the other hand if we then become to BPMN focused or if those terms are generic enough that we can assume they could be OK for potentially other modellers too?</p> <p>A lot to think about, but for our communications, that's very important to decide now - not after launch.</p>