Since when does a name have to provide sufficient context to distinguish the concept from other similar, yet distinct, ideas?
For example, tree data structures. There are:
2–3 tree, 2–3–4 tree, AA tree, (a,b)-tree, AVL tree, B-tree, B+ tree, B*-tree, Bx-tree, Binary search tree, Optimal binary search tree, Dancing tree, HTree, Interval tree, Order statistic tree, Red–black tree, Scapegoat tree, Splay tree, T-tree, Treap, UB-tree
In many of those the name doesn't provide much context at all to distinguish the concept from another one.
Names of things, at least in CS, are rarely ever named in a way to provide sufficient context of their meaning, without having some level of background context.
That is what the description of the concept is for, not the name. A name is too short to provide this. Usually the name is at the discretion of the original author (aka Dijkstra in this case). If you are trying to determine the complete concept of something, or you are trying to distinguish the concept from other similar ideas, only from the name, you are doing it wrong. Go read the documentation about the concept for that.