According to the Open zeppelin documentation, the uri related methods are anyway optional and comes as part of IERC721Metadata Interface : ERC 721 - OpenZeppelin Docs
Is this EIP addressing this or is there any other aspect?
ERC721 standard is indeed a super set to the proposed standard here. That also introduced problems. When applications of this 3754 standard are being explained to those who are deeply rooted in the current understanding of NFTs in ERC721 standard, costs are actually very high.
Therefore, the rationale of this standard is to free people from thinking of NFTs as tangile items such as digital-arts, in-games items or anything that is made available via URI.
Instead, a new standard ought to be developed to reduce the concept of NFT to its core, which is a non-fungible token. Nothing else would have to be attached to it. Interestingly, this simplification can open up new possibilities by allowing layers of abstraction built on top of it.
One specific example and one new business model are given below. ERC-721 just seems unfit.
An example of applying this token to represent the right of making a function call to a contract is given here.
An on-chain subscription business model is also made possibe by adopting this token to represent quarterly or yearly membership (time-dependent right). An example can be fees per transaction for off-chain data via an oracle can be replaced by a long-term membership fee. Then as long as the caller has a valid ERC-3754 NFT, the consumption of data feeds is free (plus gas fees). NFTs can be transferred, so is the right of consuming data feeds. This definitely has great advantages over the current pay-as-you-go business model.
What’s the difference between this and EIP-721 without the optional metadata extension? To me, this just seems like a duplicate.