RDF-star on YouTube

There is a video interview to Dean Allemang about RDF-star on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ashleighnfaith_is-rdf-just-a-shortcut-or-is-it-too-early-activity-7034501147004391424-GOg3/

which I have commented there.
In my long response, I’ve used similar arguments I’ve used in this mailing list.
However, after the meeting yesterday, I believe I need to be more clear about a point which I’d like to discuss with you.

Dean says: "If you want to figure out whether you're using RDF-star or not is in the charter: are you really making a statement about a statement, or are you making a statement about something in your domain. The cost is in your domain, the time you came to know the validity of a statement is about the statement. It's actually not that hard to figure out when to use it correctly.”

So, which of the three types of use cases (semantic, syntactic, modal) would be "correct" uses of RDF-star? My intuition says that, regardless of the wording, Dean would consider "correct" RDF-star only the syntactical annotations. My understanding is that this is the case also for some of the members of the WG.

I don't fully understand why RDF-star should limit itself to consider only the annotation use case, given that *all* the cases can always be represented by explicitly introducing a resource we want to make the statement about: this resource could be an instance of an event, of a statement, or of a triple. No big deal. There is no difference among the three cases: all of them can be represented somehow directly in plain RDF, and all of them can be represented somehow with embedded triples.

—e.