Consider record naming/querying scheme

[WarmCyan]

Various upgrades that might come along with #57 and #58 would benefit from being able to semantically refer to a specific record (without just indexing).

Unclear how this would work though - if one parameter set gets used in multiple records, it's not as simple as using the name of the parameter set.

A record is sort of a subset of a parameter set though, so maybe records can optionally be initialized with a name that refers to what that record is likely going to include.

E.g. "my_param_set.data.validation_data" is the validation_data artifact from the record named "data" under the "my_param_set" parameter set

[WarmCyan]

An alternative to this would be that it may only make sense for a parameter set to have more than one record if e.g. we were only using data parameters to have a data record, (needing the ability to "zero out" all except one portion of the parameters, see #63 and #11 ) so in that case if it was the "data" parameters only that got passed into a record, then you would reference it specifically with my_param_set.data.validation_data

[WarmCyan]

For records that have None parameters, these are probably aggregates, and likely there's only the one set of artifacts from it, so you can maybe just call by the artifact name directly (and if there's more than one, just return as an array. Really this could be done as another alternative to specifying by parameter set name too, though that should probably still be an option.)