AEIP-2. Comments on Properties

[pvalette]

Is your feature request related to a problem?

I am sorry I have other concerns about the Properties, hope that will help to progress.

• Seems that there are 2 roles in properties;
  one is to define some metadata of the token (parent) and to define a list of NFT instances (children). It will be nicer to separate these 2 items in different attributes, on an object and another one a collection.
  metadata:{} & instances: []. (didn't find a better word than instances)

• Metadata are defined by an item with 2 attributes key/value, as JSON is based on "key:value", it is more efficient (size, implementation to find the value etc..) to use the native approach. example:
  [
  { "key": "origin", "value": "France"},
  { "key": "organism", "value": "DG" }
  ]
  should be
  {
  "origin": "France",
  "organism": "DG
  }

• For NFT instance, the id should be mandatory and controlled by the developer, I will not recommended to have the index based on the position in a collection (mix representation & business)

Describe the solution you'd like

No response

Additional context

No response

[ghost]

Hello @pvalette
Thanks for the contribution.

I think the first one is interesting, we thought about it, before.
The "key"/"value", was to make the schema evolutionary and still be validated.
But this can be implemented.

For the second, I don't think should be mandatory, in some other blockchains it's either mandatory or self-defined in the contract (auto or specified). In the AEIP2 there is a mention to give the id in the property field.

[samuelmanzanera]

Closed by #14