Functional naming guides is not good for OOP

As you pass in parameter object - it have to be named as noun. Library method expect function. Function is a noun, so it is object.
Object Oriented languages have very good methodology for naming of all items, that let read code easily, mixing in different methodology that conflicts - it is not good approach.

-  names = FluentIterable.from(zipFiles).transformAndConcat(getTableNamesForZipFile).toSet();
+ names = FluentIterable.from(zipFiles).transformAndConcat(tableNamesForZipFileMaker).toSet();

  public <T> FluentIterable<T> transformAndConcat(
      Function<? super E, ? extends Iterable<? extends T>> function) {
    return from(Iterables.concat(transform(function)));
  }

Name should be:
tableNamesForZipFileGetter,
tableNamesForZipFileMaker,
tableNamesForZipFilePuller,
tableNamesForZipFileAlter,
tableNamesForZipFileResolver, ...

It is ok to have no standard prefix/suffix for name, as all functions are different by type (different functional libraries).

Economizing on 2-5 letter in comparison  to use "get" prefix does not cost that.

Interesting compromise for naming function objects : column2Name, file2name, zipFile2Name