predicate or TA as a whole needing an 'interpretation' element?

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

While creating TAs for a UBL computation model
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ubl-comment/200909/zip00000.zip
it has become apparent that an 'interpretation' element
would be useful at either predicate level or at TA level
(we have one at normative source level). Where I've
used XPaths almost everywhere in the TAs to express
predicates, etc relating to the XML of the UBL invoice,
the human readability is obscured. It would seem useful
(and to some uses of the TAs, quite important, perhaps)
to be able to restate the logic of the TA (especially the
predicate - or maybe both TA and also, separately the
predicate) in 'non-normative' prose form. 'interpretation'
or 'non-normative-prose' or the like seem appropriate as
element names for this. I'm not sure if this should mean
an update to the model / Test Assertions Guidelines.
---
Stephen D Green