Is calling Pydantic classes ThisThingModel merely confusing, or necessary?

[theo-brown]

As I'm working on transport models, I've been noticing that some of the naming gets a bit confusing.
For example, we have:

transport_model.pydantic_model.QLKNNTransportModel     # The Pydantic schema for QLKNN
transport_model.qlknn_transport_model    # The module containing the implementation of QLKNN
transport_model.qlknn_transport_model.QLKNNTransportModel   # The actual class implementation of QLKNN

Given that model tends to mean something in the physics context (namely, the actual equations or surrogate representing the desired input-output mapping of physical variables), would it be possible to rename all the Pydantic 'models' to 'schemas' or something?

If there are good reasons not to then that's totally fine, I was just finding the overloading of the name sometimes confusing and prone to slowing down how fast I can find the right part of the code.

[jcitrin]

@tamaranorman , @Nush395 , @sbodenstein . Thoughts?

[jcitrin]

To me it sounds reasonable to reserve the name "model" for physics models and "schemas" for what we called Pydantic models. And making such a change doesn't break external API