I am learning to create Use Case diagrams using the UML specification, but I have a couple of doubts about Use Case relationships which I cannot solve on my own.

My question regards two different situations:

1. the completion of a specific Use Case is a pre-condition for the execution of another Use Case. I have seen in some article that a "precedes" connector is suggested, but I don't find anything similar in UML ("precedes" and "invokes" relationship should be defined in the OML specification). The "include" relationship of the UML 2.5 specification seems suitable in some scenarios, but not in all of them.
2. there is an alternative (i.e. optional) flow during the execution of a Use Case, which can also be identified as a different Use Case which is meaningful independently. Reading the "exclude" relationship description, I understand that "the extending UseCase typically defines behavior that may not necessarily be meaningful by itself". Also, some articles says that "The extending use case is dependent on the extended (base) use case" (i.e. doesn't make much sense on its own). I'm not sure that "extend" is the proper relationship in such a situation.

I have faced both situations while designing the same diagram, thus I will report it here for completeness and a better understanding (I haven't already included all the system Use Cases in the diagram):

1. The User must be logged-in the system before re-scheduling a booking (some articles suggest this to be an "include" relationship), and the User must be viewing the booking to "trigger" the re-scheduling Use Case (this is more close to a "precedes").
2. If no suitable alternatives are available during re-scheduling, the User should be able to Delete the current booking (instead of re-scheduling it).

Thank you very much!

I am learning to create Use Case diagrams using the UML specification, but I have a couple of doubts about Use Case relationships which I cannot solve on my own.

My question regards two different situations:

1. the completion of a specific Use Case is a pre-condition for the execution of another Use Case. I have seen in some article that a "precedes" connector is suggested, but I don't find anything similar in UML ("precedes" and "invokes" relationship should be defined in the OML specification). The "include" relationship of the UML 2.5 specification seems suitable in some scenarios, but not in all of them.
2. there is an alternative (i.e. optional) flow during the execution of a Use Case, which can also be identified as a different Use Case which is meaningful independently. Reading the "exclude" relationship description, I understand that "the extending UseCase typically defines behavior that may not necessarily be meaningful by itself". Also, some articles says that "The extending use case is dependent on the extended (base) use case" (i.e. doesn't make much sense on its own). I'm not sure that "extend" is the proper relationship in such a situation.

I have faced both situations while designing the same diagram, thus I will report it here for completeness and a better understanding (I haven't already included all the system Use Cases in the diagram):

1. The User must be logged-in the system before re-scheduling a booking (some articles suggest this to be an "include" relationship), and the User must be viewing the booking to "trigger" the re-scheduling Use Case (this is more close to a "precedes").
2. If no suitable alternatives are available during re-scheduling, the User should be able to Delete the current booking (instead of re-scheduling it).

I am learning to create Use Case diagrams using the UML specification, but I have a couple of doubts about Use Case relationships which I cannot solve on my own.

My question regards two different situations:

1. the completion of a specific Use Case is a pre-condition for the execution of another Use Case. I have seen in some article that a "precedes" connector is suggested, but I don't find anything similar in UML ("precedes" and "invokes" relationship should be defined in the OML specification). I don't think that an "include" UML relationship is suitable in such scenarios, and I was wondering how this kind of relationship could be represented complying to the UML 2.5 specification.
2. there is an alternative (i.e. optional) flow during the execution of a Use Case, which can also be identified as a different Use Case which is meaningful independently. Reading the "exclude" relationship description, I understand that "the extending UseCase typically defines behavior that may not necessarily be meaningful by itself". Also, some articles says that "The extending use case is dependent on the extended (base) use case" (i.e. doesn't make much sense on its own). I'm not sure that "extend" is the proper relationship in such a situation.

I have faced both situations while designing the same diagram, thus I will report it here for completeness and a better understanding (I haven't already included all the system Use Cases in the diagram):

1. The User must be logged-in the system before re-scheduling a booking, and the User must be viewing the booking to "trigger" the re-scheduling Use Case.
2. If no suitable alternatives are available during re-scheduling, the User should be able to Delete the current booking (instead of re-scheduling it).

Thank you very much!

I am learning to create Use Case diagrams using the UML specification, but I have a couple of doubts about Use Case relationships which I cannot solve on my own.

My question regards two different situations:

1. the completion of a specific Use Case is a pre-condition for the execution of another Use Case. I have seen in some article that a "precedes" connector is suggested, but I don't find anything similar in UML ("precedes" and "invokes" relationship should be defined in the OML specification). The "include" relationship of the UML 2.5 specification seems suitable in some scenarios, but not in all of them.
2. there is an alternative (i.e. optional) flow during the execution of a Use Case, which can also be identified as a different Use Case which is meaningful independently. Reading the "exclude" relationship description, I understand that "the extending UseCase typically defines behavior that may not necessarily be meaningful by itself". Also, some articles says that "The extending use case is dependent on the extended (base) use case" (i.e. doesn't make much sense on its own). I'm not sure that "extend" is the proper relationship in such a situation.

I have faced both situations while designing the same diagram, thus I will report it here for completeness and a better understanding (I haven't already included all the system Use Cases in the diagram):

1. The User must be logged-in the system before re-scheduling a booking (some articles suggest this to be an "include" relationship), and the User must be viewing the booking to "trigger" the re-scheduling Use Case (this is more close to a "precedes").
2. If no suitable alternatives are available during re-scheduling, the User should be able to Delete the current booking (instead of re-scheduling it).

Thank you very much!