NFT-Vehicle: A Blockchain-Based Tokenization Architecture to Register Transactions over a Vehicle’s Life Cycle

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript proposes a distributed architecture for registering vehicle life transactions in a blockchain network by stakeholders. 

The framework includes NFTs which link to a physical motorized vehicle after a tokenization process. 

While the contributions are clear, the paper still has major issues that need to be addressed:

 

1) The introduction section lacks motivation and a survey of prior methods (only cited three relevant papers) to emphasize and introduce their work. 

2) There are numerous grammar mistakes and typos throughout the manuscript, such as in lines 111, 254, 269, 281, 343, 345, 362, and 368.

3) The titles of sections 3.2 and 3.3 are not appropriate and should be revised.

4) In section 3.3, the authors have used a mix of simple tense and past tense, which is a grammatical error.

5) In section 4.3, the authors have used future tense, which should be corrected.

 

The authors should thoroughly check their manuscript before resubmitting it.

Paper must extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for her/his comments. To satisfy the observations, we have tried to answer every posed question, modifying the manuscript highlighted with blue font.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a distributed architecture for registering vehicle life transactions in a blockchain network by stakeholders. The framework includes NFTs which link to a physical motorized vehicle after a tokenization process. While the contributions are clear, the paper still has major issues that need to be addressed: 

1) The introduction section lacks motivation and a survey of prior methods (only cited three relevant papers) to emphasize and introduce their work. 

Response: We added a paragraph in the introduction section, including a summary of related works to emphasize our work (page 2, paragraph 4).  Such related works are described with more detail in the related work section, 

2) The titles of sections 3.2 and 3.3 are not appropriate and should be revised.

Response: We have changed the titles of sections 3.2 and 3.3; now they are more suited. Section 3.2 now is "Dealing with the odometer fraud problem", and section 3.3 by "Vehicle transactions ledger including the stakeholders". Besides, we included a new section 3.4 "Tokenizing physical cars" to explain some examples of NTF in real-world applications, and we focused mainly on examples of using NTF for transport and car applications. 

 

3) There are numerous grammar mistakes and typos throughout the manuscript, such as in lines 111, 254, 269, 281, 343, 345, 362, and 368.

4) In section 3.3, the authors have used a mix of simple tense and past tense, which is a grammatical error. 

5) In section 4.3, the authors have used future tense, which should be corrected.  

6) The authors should thoroughly check their manuscript before resubmitting it.

7) Comments on the Quality of English Language. Paper must extensive editing of English language required.

 

Response: We thank the reviewer for her/his comments 3 to 7. We carried out extensive English language style editing for all the text in the paper; we have proofread the manuscript and corrected some grammatical errors throughout the document.

 

Additionally, the following list summarizes other changes carried out throughout the manuscript. In particular, we have:

• slightly changed the title, now it is “NFT-Vehicle: a blockchain-based tokenization architecture to register transactions on vehicles’ life cycle”. We believe that the new one is more suitable
• improved the abstract to be more readable according to our method, proofs, and results. In particular, in the abstract, we have modified (lines 7-10 and lines 11-16)
• included more details in the introduction section (lines 67-69) 
• rewritten the third contribution, stated in the Introduction section (last item of page 2), keeping the consistency with the modifications suffered in the abstract 
• improved the resolution of Figure 1. Furthermore, in section 4.3 (in item Legal Owner), we have emphasized the term LOwner 
• added more details in the abstract, the first and third paragraph of section 6, and included more details in the second paragraph of section 7 to be clearer the use of finite state machine 
• changed the caption of table 8 to be more readable. 
• improved sections 8 and 9 in general: moved some paragraphs and added others. In detail, we have:  
• highlighted with blue text in sections 8.1 and 8.2, adding more details about our implementation aspects 
• included details about the meaning of Tr at the end of section 8.2.1, which we had omitted  
• improved the introduction of section 9; added the gas consumption in formulas (14) and (15) to make them more readable 
• added a paragraph at the end of section 9.2 explaining comparison aspects with other architectures. 
• reviewed the order of the reference and corrected how they are cited in the text
• added the doi to each reference, and reviewed the bibtex format.

Reviewer 2 Report

1) What is “nor permission” in Table 8?

 2) The experimental/Implementation details and specifications are not clear.

 3) There are certain grammatical errors. For example, in Section 10:

 “It will help solve some loopholes in vehicle purchase transactions that can be exploited to commit fraud.”

 “Our proofs throw that the total transaction cost for each vehicle through its life does not represent an extra-considerable cost considering the advantages a system like this could provide to the stakeholders.”

 4) The order and the format of references cited in the manuscript are out of order. For example, [28] to [32]

 5) The uniformity needs to be maintained for the references format mentioned under Reference Section.

Authors are strongly instructed to read the manuscript carefully and rectify the grammatical errors.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for her/his comments. To satisfy the observations, we have tried to answer every posed question, modifying the manuscript highlighted with blue font.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1) What is “nor permission” in Table 8?

Response: We have changed the table's caption to be more readable.

2) The experimental/Implementation details and specifications are not clear.

Response: We have improved sections 8 and 9 in general: moved some paragraphs and added others. In particular, we have highlighted with blue text sections 8.1 and 8.2, adding more details about our implementation aspects. At the end of section 8.2.1. we have included details about the meaning of Tr, which we had omitted. We have improved the introduction of section 9; added more information to formulas (14) and (15); and provided more explanation.

 3) There are certain grammatical errors. For example, in Section 10: “It will help solve some loopholes in vehicle purchase transactions that can be exploited to commit fraud.” “Our proofs throw that the total transaction cost for each vehicle through its life does not represent an extra-considerable cost considering the advantages a system like this could provide to the stakeholders.”

Response: We have corrected the grammatical errors of such a paragraph, and others found in the rest of the paper.

 4) The order and the format of references cited in the manuscript are out of order. For example, [28] to [32]

 

Response: We reviewed the order and corrected how they are cited in the text. 

 5) The uniformity needs to be maintained for the references format mentioned under Reference Section.

Response: We added the doi to each reference and reviewed the bibtex format.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Authors are strongly instructed to read the manuscript carefully and rectify the grammatical errors.

Response: We carried out extensive English language style editing for all the text in the paper; we have proofread the manuscript and corrected some grammatical errors throughout the document

 

Additionally, the following list summarizes other changes carried out throughout the manuscript. In particular, we have:

• slightly changed the title, now it is “NFT-Vehicle: a blockchain-based tokenization architecture to register transactions on vehicles’ life cycle”. We believe that the new one is more suitable
• improved the abstract to be more readable according to our method, proofs, and results. In particular, in the abstract, we have modified (lines 7-10 and lines 11-16)
• included more details in the introduction section (lines 51-59 and lines 67-69)
• added a paragraph in the introduction section including a summary of related works to emphasize our work (page 2, paragraph 4)
• rewritten the third contribution, stated in the Introduction section (last item of page 2), keeping the consistency with the modifications suffered in the abstract
• changed titles of sections 3.2 and 3.3, now they are more suited. Section 3.2 now is "Dealing with the odometer fraud problem" and section 3.3 by "Vehicle transactions ledger including the stakeholders"
• added Subsection 3.4 “Tokenizing physical cars” to explain some examples of NTF in real world applications, and we focused mainly on examples using NTF for transport and car applications to improve the related work section
• improved the resolution of Figure 1. Furthermore, in section 4.3 (in item Legal Owner), we have emphasized the term LOwner
• added more details in the abstract, the first and third paragraph of section 6, and included more details in the second paragraph of section 7 to be clearer about the use of finite state machine

Reviewer 3 Report

In this article authors used the NFT architecture for vehicle register transaction in the decentralized medium. First, I suggest that authors expected to change title of the article, since the word life meaning is not fit in this title. The abstract not describe the core technique of proposed model. Authors used smart contract for the transactions of vehicle life in the ERC 721. there is no correlation between vehicle life transaction and the finite state machine for validating internal protocol. The following sentence is lengthy and does not provide correction meaning “In addition, the proofs throw that the total transaction cost (denoted in Ether) for each vehicle through its life does not represent an extra-considerable cost considering the advantages of a system as this could provide.”

The introduction part is clearly written and provides the need for this research and contribution of current work. In my opinion, the third point of contribution part is confusing one, I recommend authors to rewrite this one.

Section 2 provides the overview of blockchain and the need of NFT for this work. It will be better to include the smart properties of NFT in the section 2.4.

Related work provide the overview vehicle life transactions in the past and need for blockchain based architecture. Authors need to discuss the need of current research in the final part of related work. In this article there is no discussion of current research in the related work section.

The figure 1 text is not clearly visible, since authors needs to increase the resolution of figure. In this figure explain the different between owner and legal owner. In figure 1 you have two blocks owner and Lowner what is the need foe these two blocks instead of single block.

Smart property hierarchy part provide the complete process of the NFT vehicle model. The explains are provided with class diagram and functions.

What is need for finite state machine in the architecture. Since, OOP provides all state of each and every transactions of NFT vehicle. Then what is specific need of finite state machine.

Section 7 and 8 clearly described the all the functions and structured well.

In section 9, it will better to add the graphical view of gas consumption. And also better to compare the other existing architecture.

The conclusion written well and provide the complete discussions.

NA

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for her/his comments. To satisfy the observations, we have tried to answer every posed question, modifying the manuscript highlighted with blue font.

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In this article authors used the NFT architecture for vehicle register transaction in the decentralized medium.

1. First, I suggest that authors expected to change title of the article, since the word life meaning is not fit in this title.

Response: We have changed the title; although it preserves the word “life”, we believe the new one is more suitable.

1. The abstract not describe the core technique of proposed model.

Response: We have improved the abstract to be more readable according to our method, proofs, and results.

 

1. Authors used smart contract for the transactions of vehicle life in the ERC 721. there is no correlation between vehicle life transaction and the finite state machine for validating internal protocol.

Response: We modified the abstract (lines 7-10 and 11-16). We added more details in the first and third paragraphs of section 6 and included more details in the second paragraph of section 7.

 

1. The following sentence is lengthy and does not provide correction meaning “In addition, the proofs throw that the total transaction cost (denoted in Ether) for each vehicle through its life does not represent an extra-considerable cost considering the advantages of a system as this could provide.”

Response: We have removed the sentence and added a new one at the end of the abstract, which we believe is more readable.

 

1. The introduction part is clearly written and provides the need for this research and contribution of current work. In my opinion, the third point of contribution part is confusing one, I recommend authors to rewrite this one.

Response: Thanks for helping us to explain in a better way. We have rewritten the third contribution, stated in the Introduction section (last item of page 2), keeping the consistency with the modifications suffered in the abstract.

 

1. Section 2 provides the overview of blockchain and the need of NFT for this work. It will be better to include the smart properties of NFT in the section 2.4.

Response: We have deleted such a paragraph in section 2.1 and included a modified version in the last paragraph of section 2.4.

 

1. Related work provide the overview vehicle life transactions in the past and need for blockchain based architecture.

Response: Not changes requested.

 

1. Authors need to discuss the need of current research in the final part of related work. In this article there is no discussion of current research in the related work section.

Response: We added a the end of each subsection, within section 3, a paragraph giving an analysis concerning the consulted related works. Additionally, we added an entire subsection (3.4) to strengthen the related work section.

 

1. The figure 1 text is not clearly visible, since authors needs to increase the resolution of figure. In this figure explain the different between owner and legal owner. In figure 1 you have two blocks owner and Lowner what is the need foe these two blocks instead of single block.

Response: We have improved the figure resolution. In addition, in section 4.3 (in item Legal Owner), we emphasized the term LOwner.

 

1. Smart property hierarchy part provide the complete process of the NFT vehicle model. The explains are provided with class diagram and functions.

Response: Not changes requested.

 

1. What is need for finite state machine in the architecture. Since, OOP provides all state of each and every transactions of NFT vehicle. Then what is specific need of finite state machine.

Response: We have used Finite State Machine during the design phase to prevent inconsistencies while developing the smart contract. We have reinforced this part with the blue paragraphs in the introduction part of section 6.

 

1. Section 7 and 8 clearly described the all the functions and structured well.

Response: Not changes requested.

 

1. In section 9, it will better to add the graphical view of gas consumption. And also better to compare the other existing architecture.

Response: We added the gas consumption in formulas (14) and (15) to make them more readable. Furthermore, we added a paragraph at the end of section 9.2 explaining comparison aspects with other architectures.

1. The conclusion written well and provide the complete discussions.

Response: Not changes requested.

 

Additionally, the following list summarizes other changes carried out throughout the manuscript. In particular, we have:

• included more details in the introduction section (lines 51-59 and lines 67-69)
• added a paragraph in the introduction section including a summary of related works to emphasize our work (page 2, paragraph 4)
• changed titles of sections 3.2 and 3.3, now they are more suited. Section 3.2 now is "Dealing with the odometer fraud problem" and section 3.3 by "Vehicle transactions ledger including the stakeholders"
• added Subsection 3.4 “Tokenizing physical cars” to explain some examples of NTF in real-world applications, and we focused particularly on examples using NTF for transport and car applications to improve the related work section
• changed the caption of Table 8 to be more readable.
• improved sections 8 and 9 in general: moved some paragraphs and added others. In detail, we have:
  • highlighted with blue text in sections 8.1 and 8.2, adding more details about our implementation aspects
  • included details about the meaning of Tr at the end of section 8.2.1, which we had omitted
  • improved the introduction of section 9; added the gas consumption in formulas (14) and (15) to make them more readable
  • added a paragraph at the end of section 9.2 explaining comparison aspects with other architectures.
• reviewed the order of the references and corrected how they are cited in the text 
• added the doi to each reference and reviewed the bibtex format.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept with current revision paper

 Minor editing of English language required