Consider adding metNames to the metabolites.tsv annotation file

[JonathanRob]

I realize that adding metabolite names (metNames) to the metabolites.tsv file would duplicate the information already contained within the model file, but I think it makes sense to have a human-readable metabolite name present directly within the annotation file for convenience.

Likewise, we could also consider adding rxnNames to the reactions.tsv annotation file, though since many of these are missing, I do not think it's as important.

What do others think?

[haowang-bioinfo]

it's a great idea to provide metNames and rxnNames to metabolites.tsv and reactions.tsv, respectively.
you have my full support @JonathanRob

[mihai-sysbio]

Conceptually, this is pushing more information into the relatively non-standard tsv. Before continuing in this direction, I would suggest to look at how different file formats deal with this. If I remember correctly, the COBRA-defined yaml is self-contained, which in our case would mean merging the entire tsv into the yaml. Alternatively there is SBtab, but I think that is a binary format, which makes it not applicable for our use case.

[JonathanRob]

One of the main motivators for the tsv file is that its format is very intuitive and familiar for people even beyond the modeling community. In my experience, the tsv files are exactly what many users are looking for, so I would generally be opposed to phasing them out.