New Standard: NFT metadata - Milestone 1

[yarnauy]

PNew Standard: NFT metadata - Milestone 1

Description

This PR is for issue #16.

• Summary: We introduced some design points about metadata standards which might provide some help for the construction and optimization of other solutions. And we also gave our initial solution here.
• Requirement: "Define a rough outline of your proposal. This can be a written document (i.e. a GitHub issue), but should also include Cadence code snippets that illustrate the core concepts of the standard."

Submission Links & Documents

Requirements Check

• Have have you met the milestone requirements? YES
• Have you included tests (if applicable)? NO
• Have you met the contribution guidelines of the repos you have submitted code to (if applicable)? YES
• If this is the last milestone:
  • Demonstrate that you've met all the acceptance criteria (link to code, demos, instructions to run etc.)
  • Demonstrate that you've met all milestone requirements and highlight any extensions or additional work done.
  • Include a payout structure by percentage for each team member (ie. Bob: 20%, Alice: 80%).

Other Details

We are still refining the proposal, especially the Cadence implementation part~

[joshuahannan]

Good proposal! It reminds me a lot of what the team non fungibles team submitted. Can you clarify what the main differences are?

[yarnauy]

Good proposal! It reminds me a lot of what the team non fungibles team submitted. Can you clarify what the main differences are?

Thanks for the reply!
Before submitting this proposal, we have read all the previous discussions and got a lot of inspiration from them.
Team Non Fungibles' proposal gives detailed metadata specification for different data types/application scenarios in Cadence, and also gives some examples. It is a very good proposal.

In contrast, we mainly consider that it is difficult to list all possible data types/combinations/application scenarios just by enumeration. So we try to give some methodologies for building the standard from a high-level perspective, such as modularity & plug-in patterns and other strategies, in order to improve the scalability and adaptability of the whole standard. We propose to divide the total metadata into different modules, according to the differences in scalability requirements: Basic Info，Specific metadata packages，Raw data anchor and Mutable Data. We believe that all data can be mapped to one of them without frequently extending the standard.

Our two teams' solutions may be complementary, and maybe our ideas can help other teams to design and optimize their solutions as well. But we don't have a perfect Cadence implementation yet, we are working on it and ready to put it in the next milestone.

Our desire is to see a perfect metadata standard born, rather than win this competition. We would appreciate it if our proposal can be helpful. We would also be happy to be able to discuss it with other teams and come up with a proposal together. TBH, we are not yet skilled enough in Cadence development :(

[joshuahannan]

Yeah, that makes sense. We're happy to accept this milestone, but we'll probably get more input from different parties for your second milestone and be a little more discerning about the interoperability and feasability. Thanks for your submission!
@srinjoyc Can you merge this?