Problems with unrestricted usage of syntax in option 3

Problems arising with unrestricted usage of syntax in option 3, due to an implicit meaning given to triple terms and to the rdf:nameof property:

Implicit equalities in RDF entailment:

<( :s1 :p1  "42"^^xsd:integer )> :p :o .
entails and is entailed by
<( :s1 :p1 "042"^^xsd:integer )> :p :o .

<( :s1 :p1 :o1 )> :p :o .
<( :s2 :p1 :o1 )> owl:same-as _:b .
:s1 owl:same-as :s2 .
entails
_:b :p :o .

What is the meaning of:
_:b rdf:nameof _:b .
<( :s1 :p1 :o1 )> rdf:nameof "42"^^xsd:integer .

I suspect that with a well-formedness condition such as "tripleTerms can only appear as objects of rdf:nameOf triples, which can have only tripleTerms as objects" we could avoid these problems.
I strongly believe also that nobody is ever interested to write non-well-formed RDF graphs.
But if we do assume this condition, then why not having natively triple occurrences (i.e., NOT as a macro) and avoid completely the rdf:nameOf property:
<< :wed-1 | :liz :spouse :richard >>
  :starts 1964 ;
  :ends 1974 .

—e.