Why is "Application Service" being renamed to "Service Instance", and not e.g. "Product Instance"?

[Johannes]

In CSDM v5 DRAFT, the Application Service is renamed to Service Instance.

The Application Service has previously been defined as the instantiation of the Business Application.

Now, when Business Application is renamed to Digital Product, why is not e.g. "Product" used as part of the new name for the Application Service? Is the definition also changed? Or the earlier suggested "System"?

As the word "Service" is removed from Service Offering, it is only Technology Mgmt Service and Business Service containing this word in addition to Service instance, making it sound like these are partly representing the same thing, which is not correct.

Also, there are probably more interpretations of the word “service” than there are CIs in the universe, so using this word should in general be avoided.

I believe changing the name from Application Service to Service Instance will make understanding the CSDM even more complex, and really hope this is not the final decision.

[Daniel Borkowi1]

Hi@Johannes serious, again "Service" will be part of the new name for Application Service? Again a chance to make it more understandable is gone. I'm still believe that (Digital) Product Instance is a better choice. The record is simply not a Service - it's  a starting point of a technical stack - therefore neither Application Service nor Service Instance are a good choice in my opinion.  This CI is more related to the Digital Product (as a instance of it) than to the Services which are provided by or which contains this CI. Only my two cents. 

Greets
Daniel

Please mark reply as Helpful/Correct, if applicable. Thanks!

[Johannes]

Exactly my point, @Daniel Borkowi1 

[Mike I2]

I agree. I feel that the original plan to rename App Services to "Systems" was the best way to go. Overall, CSDM naming conventions, for customers, need considerable explaining, and often I've found that they chose to translate the Domains and Entities to make them more understandable and relatable. 

[TaylorJ78]

Agreed, renaming the Application Service to "System" is still going to cause confusion.  The owners of the Applications are wanting to break them down to their Service/Application installed on their boxes or running in serverless cloud instead of looking at it as a Product instance.  I have many that want to define their Application Services (as to what they are deploying to the app layer) in this record then define them again in the BSO.  This type of redundancy is causing tables to grow exponentially for AppService (4 environments can equates to 75 App service records due to calling out each installed application).
I am not sure if naming the table to Product will help or if this is just going to be a challenge with CSDM for the unforeseen future.