Re: Curating the Goals of Use Cases

Hi Antoine!

(sorry for delay, slow connections in China)

> Otherwise a small comment on naming. You make the distinction between
> RELATE and ASSOCIATE, based on whether the target link between entities
> exist in the data or is discovered as part of the case's scenario. To me
> this also suggest the links would be of different (semantic) types. If
> it is not the case, then I prefer the qualifier approach you had for the
> previous list [3], where you had RELATIONS and RELATIONS-NEW (just to
> make it 100% clear, it's the qualifier I like; on RELATIONS vs RELATE I
> have strictly no opinion ;-)).

We have decided to remove ASSOCIATE, and only have RELATE. Per your 
suggestion, qualifiers can be used to indicate whether it's "existing" 
and/or "new" relations that are represented, and the type of relation, 
e.g. "aggregation", so you would get e.g.

RELATE (existing, aggregate).

Best,
Mark

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/lld/wiki/Goals