Mapping table contributions to parameter table validation (SciML use case)

Background

This issue summarises the question of whether the mapping table should be allowed to contribute additional valid entries to the parameter table. This came up during review of #482 and #480.

For currently supported model types (SBML, PySB), the assumption has been that the mapping table would not introduce additional valid parameter table entries.

However, Petab-SciML requires this kind of mapping table contribution. For example, a network parameter group net1.parameters could be assigned a PEtab ID (e.g. net_ps) in the mapping table, and that ID would then appear in the parameters table with its bounds and priors. In this case, the mapping table does need to feed into parameter table validation.

Open questions

• Are SciML problems the only use case where mapping table entries need to be treated as valid parameter table parameters?
• What API would be needed to validate parameters contributed by the mapping table?
  • A SciML specific ValidationTask is one option

Next steps

• Confirm whether SciML is the only use case for this requirement
• Design the API to support it
• Implement and test

No source files, tests, or entry points are named. Start by reviewing issues #482 and #480 and confirming whether SciML is the only use case; design an API for mapping-table-contributed parameters, then implement and test the validation behavior.