Additional data vs metadata

I'm putting this in a separate thread because I think it's important
enough. I'm of the view that there should be separation between additional
data and metadata. RDF-star is a great model for metadata, but because
there's no corresponding way to add additional data, people are using
RDF-star for both. It's like a step was missed. The solution I propose for
it is in another thread, "Three ideas
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-star/2022Jan/0024.html>",
specifically what I call a "complex statement". I'll quickly try to explain
what I think the problem is, I'm rushing this email a bit, so if
something's wrong let me know.

There are three different things that in my view are constantly getting
muddled in RDF-star examples. If a triple is in the subject position it's
common to see annotations that, in my view, actually have different
subjects, but you wouldn't know it from the way they're all grouped
together. The subject could be:

   1. The relationship/event.
   2. The abstract description of the relationship/event.
   3. Specific occurrences of the abstract description of the
   relationship/event.

The terminology I'm using:

   - Triples where (1) is the subject are what I describe as "additional
   data".
   - Triples where (2) is the subject are what I describe as "metadata".
   - Triples where (3) is the subject are also what I describe as
   "metadata", but the proposed "occurrenceOf" vocabulary already comes to the
   rescue here.

The intention of RDF-star, if I understand correctly, is to solve (2). But
because there's no equally simple way to express (1) people are also using
RDF-star for that. There's a difference between a description of a
relationship/event, and a description of a description of that
relationship/event. Very quick example where (1) and (2) are separated:

:LizT :starredIn :JaneEyre
    {
        :role :HelenBurns,
        :pay-USD 10000,
    }
    {|
        :statedBy :Bob,
        :statedIn :Wikipedia,
    |}


So, very quick summary because I'm hurrying this, my suggestion is that it
be made clear to users of RDF-star that it's only for metadata, or in
parallel we come up with an equally simple syntax for n-ary relationships
so that there are simple ways to model both things without getting them
muddled.

If I'm missing something here and it's not so black and white, or if you
don't think it's a problem, please suggest some examples that we can talk
about. Sorry for the hasty way this was written.

Regards
Anthony