UMLR — Are null NamedElement::name values names?

I am informed that UML aspires to have null-free collections, even though UML uses OCL which explicitly supports null within collections.

There is a UML/OCL conflict for Namespace::getNamesOfMember for which a null-named element returns a non-empty set. Consequently multiple unnamed elements such as Constraints violate the NamedElement::isDistinguishableFrom query and so are not valid in UML.

If an ->excluding(null) is added to the getNamesOfMember result, a more interesting semantics that a null name is not a name results and permits multiple null-named Constraints.

If this change is pursued, 7.4.3.2 needs to be explicit rather than suggestive that an unnamed element has a null name which is an absence of a name and so when aggregated in a collection of names does not contribute a null value. Perhaps a 6.3.4 section is needed to generically specify that every Collection value in every specified OCL body has an implicit aCollectionValue->excluding(null) to enforce the no-nulls-in-collections semantics of UML.