Best way for giving name of Functional (and other) Exchanges

Hello Dear Team!
Please imagine more and more Functional (or various) exchanges, what is guideline (i ment about you mind) do you use for giving name for Exchanges, do you give a specific name for all of these exchanges or not and you still using default name?
Could you please look on image for represent my question (sorry for Russian, i hope what language in this case is not matter)
Thank you!

I think you should give a name to each exchange (either functional or behavioral - between components) : this name should be evocative of what is exchanged between source and destination, so that each of them is clearly described by what it can produce, and what it needs for so. Not doing so leaves an ambiguity in the model definition.
Note that you can synthesize several functional exchanges (describing the full detail of what is exchanged) into a reduced number of component exchanges; this may be useful for a more synthetic and implementation-driven representation of components behavior.

Copyright © Eclipse Capella, the Eclipse Capella logo, Eclipse and the Eclipse logo are Trademarks of The Eclipse Foundation.