Currently for our images we follow a naming scheme that had been introduced by the Cloud Enablement team [1], which is i.e. jboss-webserver-5-webserver55-openjdk11-tomcat9-rhel8-openshift-container-1.0.
It seems now that other teams are not keeping to this scheme and have altered their definitions to be more descriptive/intuitive. As an example, we can look to an EAP 7.4 package: jboss-eap-74-openjdk11-runtime-openshift-rhel8-container-7.4.0

The name is significantly shorter, plus the tag of the image is hinting to the actual version of the product (7.4.0) whereas the 1.0 tag that we currently have in our images doesn't have any added value, but probably is a semantics remnant of a previous workflow.
A possible suggestion would be to change the package name to jboss-webserver-{minormajor}-openjdk{jdkVersion}-tomcat{tomcatVersion}-rhel8-openshift-container-{major.minor.micro}, so for the upcoming JWS 5.6.0 release, the resulting name of the jdk11 flavor package would be jboss-webserver-56-openjdk11-tomcat9-rhel8-openshift-container-5.6.0 . Also, if we think that the tomcat version doesn't add any value, we can slash it altogether from the name.

As I am not aware of a general guideline regarding the packages' names being in effect at the time of writing (except for the rhel8-openshift-container suffix which is mandated by RCM/Comet), we should use this Jira to come to an agreement.

[1]:https://docs.engineering.redhat.com/display/CE/Image+naming+and+versioning