What does a triple term denote?

Dear all,

In order to discuss details such as the relationship between this triple
(itself, not its encoding):

    <s> :p <o> .

and the triple term used as the object of this following other triple:

    <r> rdf:reifies <<( <s> :p <o> )>> .

I believe that the denotation of triple terms needs to be defined.

In RDF Concepts, triples are currently introduced in "1.2 Resources and
Statements" [1] with:

    Asserting an RDF triple says that some relationship, indicated by the
predicate, holds between the resources denoted by the subject and object.
This statement corresponding to an RDF triple is known as an RDF statement.

Furthermore in "1.8 Equivalence, Entailment and Inconsistency" [2]:

    An RDF triple encodes a statement—a simple logical expression, or claim
about the world.

(This wording is unchanged since 1.1.)

Thus, in my mind, that simple logical expression or claim is what a given
triple term denotes (since they are transparent, in the same interpretation
as the rest of the graph).

I also think that the use of the word "statement" (RDF Statement) to refer
to this claim is somewhat ambiguous (it says "corresponding to", and it
might be taken as referring to the assertion as an "utterance"). This is
further aggravated by the use of the rdf:Statement class in "classic"
Reification [3] as the rdf:type of:

    a concrete realization of an RDF triple, such as a document in a
surface syntax, rather than a triple considered as an abstract object.

(This might have been a source of some confusion or conflation between the
abstract binary relationship "type" and "token" occurrences thereof.)

Some further suggestions:

1. While it is the meaning (formal definition) of this denotation that is
paramount, I believe its type ought to be named something like rdf:Claim,
rather than e.g. rdf:TripleTerm.
2. I wouldn't mind rdf:Triple that much though (since we have rdfs:Literal,
and what values *they* denote is another story).
2. I also believe we need an RDF entailment defined for triple terms
(details in [4]).
3. Maybe a claim that is true should be a member of a subclass (e.g.
rdf:Fact or rdf:Assertion) of whatever type is defined. That may have some
very interesting consequences.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Niklas

[1]: <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#resources-and-statements>
[2]: <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-concepts/#entailment>
[3]: <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf12-semantics/#Reif>
[4]: <https://github.com/w3c/rdf-ucr/issues/27>