[QUESTION] Is it valid/best-practice to have diverging Descriptions/DisplayNames in template and instances?

[empwilli]

When creating a submodel instance (SMI) from a submodel template (SMT), is it valid to adapt descriptions and display names of submodel elements, or should they be adopted verbatim?

The first case 1) I can imagine is to use the Description/DisplayName for UX to provide users with the clues to tell these items from one another.

Here, I'd like to assign different Descriptions or DisplayNames for submodel element list items, (or in older submodels other submodel elements that have a SMT/Cardinality Qualifier of ZeroToMany or OneToMany)?

The second case 2) are SMTs where as DisplayName/Description (and even SemanticId/IdShort) are not available at SMT design time, as is the case for arbitrary properties. Here, these properties must be assigned individually for instances.

So the question is: what are the guidelines for assigning Descriptions/DisplayNames in case 1?

[seicke]

To my knowledge, there is currently no guideline in this regard.

From my point of view it should be allowed to adapt the displayName for all Referables (not only for SME in SMLs).
Note: The BaSyx AAS Web UI uses the displayName to give users the opportunity to distinguish between SMEs and identify them easily, for example.

[SAidta]

displayName and descriptions are 2 pairs of shoes:
displayNames are for users/humans only. They may be chosen freely for SMIs.
descriptions stem from dictionaries and should follow their respective source to the latter. Their change are the same as a change of the resp. semantic id.