Thanks, Daniel.
When I follow your link I get to
Returning to Adam’s original point, “Each statement, claim, or fact could have a URL“, I wonder how this existing identifier is not providing this.
As you say, the Wikidata statement, claim or fact does not have its own QNode. Except it might, if we treated it as a concept in its own right. This is exactly what I would expect Abstract Wikipedia to do (that is, the claim is the basic unit of language-neutral content in AW, given that Wikidata already has language-neutral nouns). Abstract Wikipedia would (should) also have “clusters” of claims that can range over multiple subjects (QNodes) or express controversy about a claim, and so forth.
That’s not meant to suggest that Wikifact is already included in Abstract Wikipedia, by the way! One key difference, paradoxically, is that Wikifact would presumably represent false and contentious claims as subjects in their own right, whereas AW would (presumably, generally) cluster such claims under a broader topic.
Best regards,
Al.