Yes, and I'd like to add that W3C's semantic web efforts (in the form of EU-sponsored papers of top researchers in the field) have brought pretty well-understoo

Yes, and I'd like to add that W3C's semantic web efforts (in the form of EU-sponsored papers of top researchers in the field) have brought pretty well-understood description logic subsets formalized as OWL2 profiles. But IMHO, in W3C's semantic stack, these pearls get somewhat lost under layers of syntax - not just RDF/XML but also the (IMHO) mediocre SPARQL language syntax/protocol and needless variant syntaxes for description logic axioms such as functional syntax, etc. As you probably know, this all started as a variable-free syntax for logic axioms (such as your example for transitivity) as early as 1991, but I'm arguing not much was won (and in fact, things were made less clear intuitively) by using variable-free ad-hoc syntax for logic. While many people like JSON-LD, if you see actual uses of it such as Google's corporate contacts ([1]), I can't help but think it merely adds to the already heavy "syntacticity" of the semantic stack. For me, JSON-LD feels like an appeasement to the JSON and pragmatic web developers crowd, but then its JSON gets very complicated/counter-intuitive and squeezes @type, @context and other meta-meta attributes into JSON which won't make pragmatist happy. Personally, my go-to stack for logic has become Datalog and Prolog once again (unmatched in terms of minimalism, elegance, and power IMHO). [1]: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/corporate-contacts#examples https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/corpora...