C2090-320 study guide changes on daily basis, download daily

killexams.com IBM Certification concentrate on guides comprise of real test questions and replies. Exceptionally our C2090-320 study guide are legitimate, Latest, and 2022 refreshed on an ordinary premise. Many applicants breeze through their C2090-320 test with our genuine inquiries questions and answers. On the off chance that you like to appreciate achievement, you ought to download C2090-320 study guide.

Exam Code: C2090-320 Practice exam 2022 by Killexams.com team
C2090-320 DB2 11 Fundamentals for z/OS

Exam : C2090-320
Exam Name : IBM DB2 11 Fundamentals for z/OS
Number of questions : 63
Number of questions to pass : 41
Time allowed : 90 mins
Status : Live

This Database Associate certification is an entry level exam for a user of any of the DB2 for z/OS family of products. This individual is knowledgeable about the fundamental concepts of DB2 11 for z/OS through either hands on experience or formal and informal education. The database associate should have an in-depth knowledge of the basic to intermediate tasks required in day-to-day administration, basic SQL (Structured Query Language), understand which additional products are available with DB2 11, understand how to create databases and database objects, and have a basic knowledge of database security and transaction isolation.

Section 1 - Working with SQL and XML 14%
Basic ability to write a DML SQL statement
Basic ability to access and process XML data (XQuery, Xpath)
Basic knowledge of most commonly used special registers
Basic knowledge of built-in functions

Section 2 - Security 8%
Basic knowledge of restricting data access (authorities, privileges, views, profiles, roles, trusted contexts)
Basic ability to write a Data Control Language (DCL) SQL statement

Section 3 - Planning 17%
Basic ability to connect to DB2 servers (demonstrate ability to use remote access)
Basic knowledge of different types of tables (Base, MQT, Auxiliary, Partitioned, Temporal - at a high level; when is it appropriate to use each type) and table spaces
Basic knowledge of subsystem parameters
Basic knowledge of DB2 architecture (address spaces, logs, IRLM)
Basic knowledge of data sharing concepts
Basic knowledge of database workloads (transactional processing vs. analytics)
Basic knowledge of encoding scheme concepts

Section 4 - Operations 14%
Basic knowledge of DB2 commands and DSN commands
Basic knowledge of DB2 utilities
Basic knowledge of troubleshooting (Explain, SQL Codes)

Section 5 - Data Concurrency 10%
Basic knowledge of transaction management (COMMIT, ROLLBACK, AUTOCOMMIT and SAVEPOINT)
Basic knowledge of locking
Given a situation, basic knowledge to identify the isolation levels that should be used

Section 6 - Application Design 19%
Basic ability to create and call a stored procedure or a user defined function (understanding of passing parameters and obtaining results)
Basic knowledge of temporary tables (how they are created and when they should be used)
Basic knowledge of triggers (how they function; when they might be used)
Basic knowledge of program preparation and BIND options
Basic knowledge of referential integrity and constraints
Basic knowledge of non-relational data concepts (XML data, LOB data)
Basic knowledge of Temporal (Time Travel) Tables - System-period, Application-period, and Bi-temporal - ability to create and query

Section 7 - Working with Database Objects 18%
Basic ability to demonstrate usage of IBM-supplied and user-defined data types
Basic ability to write a DDL SQL statement
Basic ability to identify characteristics and properties of DB2 objects (Tables, Indexes, Views,...)
Basic ability to look up information in the DB2 catalog

DB2 11 Fundamentals for z/OS
IBM Fundamentals course outline
Killexams : IBM Fundamentals course outline - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/C2090-320 Search results Killexams : IBM Fundamentals course outline - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/C2090-320 https://killexams.com/exam_list/IBM Killexams : Google Cloud Certifications and Career Guide 2019

Alphabet Inc. is the holding company that owns Google, along with a portfolio of other companies and assets. Among these many entities – including Calico, Sidewalk Labs, Chronicle, Dandelion, DeepMind, Google Fiber, Waymo and numerous others – Google is certainly first and foremost. By itself, even Google is no simple beast, though. It acts as the umbrella company for all of Alphabet’s business with an internet focus or connection, including the Android mobile OS, YouTube and Google Search, among many other elements.

Given Google’s enormous market recognition and mindshare, it may come as something of a surprise to learn that it is not the market leader in cloud services and delivery. In fact, Google didn’t make Forbes’ 2017 list of The Top 5 Cloud Computing Vendors. That said, the Google Cloud Platform (GCP) is a member of the top five such platforms, along with Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services, which routinely swap between first and second place. Oracle and IBM also place in the top five as well, often ahead of the Google Cloud Platform, depending on the metrics used to rank them.

Given all this, Google has powerful incentives to create and get behind a potent and well-regarded certification program for the Google Cloud Platform. Its efforts over the past two or three years are starting to pay some dividends, as an upcoming chart of job board search results will illustrate. But first, let’s take a look at the Google Cloud Platform certification portfolio as it currently stands.

The Google Cloud Platform certification portfolio

The Google certification program has experienced significant growth since our last update. At our last update, Google offered three certifications, one at the associate level and two at the professional level. Today, Google offers one associate-level credential, five professional level certifications, plus a certification aimed at G Suite productivity and collaboration tools. Current certifications include:

  • Associate Cloud Engineer
  • Professional Cloud Architect
  • Professional Data Engineer
  • Professional Cloud Developer
  • Professional Cloud Network Engineer
  • Professional Cloud Security Engineer
  • G Suite certification

To earn a Google certification, candidates must pass a single exam. All exams are reasonably priced with professional-level exams costing $200, $125 for associate-level exams, and $75 for the G Suite exam.

Associate- and professional- exams must be taken at a Kryterion testing center. At present, the G Suite exam is remote. While there are no mandatory prerequisites for any certification, training is highly recommended, and Google maintains links to various training resources on the respective exam web page.

Google is also affiliated with Coursera, and candidates will find formal training available through Coursera as well. At least six months of experience working with Google Cloud Platform is recommended for associate-level credentials, and a minimum of three years of industry experience for professional-level certifications with at least one year in designing and managing GCP solutions.

Google Cloud Platform: Associate Cloud Engineer

The Associate Cloud Engineer (ACE) deploys applications, monitors operations and manages enterprise solutions. He or she can use Google Cloud Console and the command line to complete common platform-based tasks. An ACE also maintains one or more deployed solutions that use either Google- or self-managed services in the Google Cloud environment.

To qualify candidates, the ACE exams seek to assess these specific abilities regarding Google Cloud solutions:

  • Set up a Google Cloud Platform environment
  • Plan and configure a Google Cloud Platform environment
  • Deploy and implement a Google Cloud Platform environment
  • Ensure successful operation of a Google Cloud Platform environment
  • Configure access and security controls for a Google Cloud Platform environment

Google recommends two training courses: Google Cloud Platform Fundamentals: Core Infrastructure and Architecting with Google Cloud Platform: Infrastructure and are available in ILT and online formats. Both courses are also offered in affiliation with Coursera. Qwiklabs also offers Google Platform Essentials labs and a Cloud Architect Quest to support hands-on learning and experience.

It’s absolutely correct to treat the ACE as the entry-level credential for the Google Cloud Platform. It’s most likely to appeal to early-stage or mid-career IT professionals interested in cloud computing, who work with (or want a job with an organization that uses) the Google Cloud Platform. The ACE represents a great way for such people to learn and acquire the skills and knowledge needed to set up, deploy and manage a runtime environment that incorporates the Google Cloud Platform.

Google Cloud Platform: Professional Cloud Architect

The Professional Cloud Architect (PCA) enables organizations to make effective and efficient use of Google Cloud technologies. PCAs must develop a thorough understanding of cloud architecture in general, and the Google Cloud Platform in particular. Those who hold this credential can design, develop and manage dynamic Google Cloud Platform solutions to meet business objectives that are robust, secure, scalable and highly available.

To qualify for the PCA, the exams seek to assess these specific abilities regarding Google Cloud Platform solutions:

  • Design and plan a cloud solution architecture
  • Manage and provision a cloud solution architecture
  • Build cloud solutions that are secure and compliant
  • Perform technical and business analyses to optimize processes, procedures and policies
  • Manage cloud architecture implementations
  • Ensure that cloud solutions and operations are reliable and remain available

A slate of related curriculum elements for the PCA is available online through Coursera, or in the classroom, as candidates’ needs and budgets may dictate. The same labs and quests offered for the ACE also apply to the PCA as well.

The PCA represents a more senior credential that’s most likely to appeal to mid- to late-career professionals interested in filling a cloud architect role in an organization of some size. Thus, the ACE makes a pretty good precursor to the PDE (even though it’s not formally required as a pre-requisite).

Google Cloud Platform: Professional Data Engineer

The Professional Data Engineer (PDE) focuses more on analyzing and using data stored in the Google Cloud Platform, rather than in designing, deploying or maintaining such environments as with the ACE and the PCA. As such, a PDE supports and facilitates data-driven decision-making based on collecting, transforming and visualizing data. Such professionals design, build, maintain and troubleshoot data processing systems. The PDE curriculum and exam puts particular emphasis on ensuring that such data processing systems are secure, reliable and fault-tolerant, as well as scalable, accurate, and efficient.

To qualify for the PDE, the exams seek to assess these specific abilities regarding Google Cloud Platform solutions:

  • Build and maintain data structures and databases within the Google Cloud Platform
  • Design data processing systems based on the Google Cloud Platform
  • Analyze data to support machine learning within the Google Cloud Platform
  • Model business processes for analysis and optimization within the Google Cloud Platform
  • Design for reliability and robustness, security and compliance within the Google Cloud Platform
  • Visualize data and advocate policy within the Google Cloud Platform

A different slate of courses is offered for the PDE, covered on the Data and Machine Learning page at Google Training. Candidates may choose among courses for three tracks for this credential: a data analyst track, a data engineering track and a data scientist track. In addition to a data engineering quest for hands-on PDE training, Google also offers an advanced, four-week machine learning advanced solutions lab at the main Google campus in Mountain View, California. A set of five practice exams may be purchased from Udemy.com for $24.99.

IT professionals interested in big data, data analysis, and/or machine learning are most likely to be attracted to the PDE. It’s a great credential for those with strong data interests and proclivities anywhere in their IT careers, though a strong background and interest in mathematics and data modeling/analysis is strongly recommended.

Professional Cloud Developer

The Professional Cloud Developer (PCD) is ideal for candidates who use Google services, tools and recommended practices to design, build, test, and deploy highly available and scalable applications. Candidates should possess the skills necessary to successfully integrate GCP services and conduct application performance monitoring. While not covered on the exam, candidates need to be able to successfully use Stackdriver to debug, trace code, and produce metrics. Proficiency in at least one general programming language is also recommended.

The exam is focused on validating a candidate’s ability and skill to use GCP services and practices in five key areas:

  • Designing cloud-native applications
  • Building and testing applications
  • Deploying applications
  • Integrating Google Cloud Platform Services
  • Managing application performance testing

On the certification web page, candidates will find links to an exam outline and demo case studies to help prepare for the exam. Recommended training includes the Google Cloud Platform Fundamentals: Core Infrastructure course and the Developing Applications with Google’s Cloud Platform. Quests on application development for Java or Python and core technologies, such as Stackdriver, Google Cloud Solutions: Scaling Your Infrastructure, and Kubernetes solutions, are also recommended.

Professional Cloud Network Engineer

A Google Professional Cloud Network Engineer (CNE) manages and implements network architectures using GCP. In addition to GCP, successful candidates should be skilled in working with technologies such as hybrid connectivity, network architecture security, VPCs, network services, and the GCP Console command line interface.

The exam is comprehensive and covers related topics:

  • Designing, planning and prototyping a GCP network
  • Implementing a GCP Virtual Private Cloud (VPC)
  • Configuring network services
  • Implementing hybrid connectivity
  • Implementing network security
  • Managing and monitoring network operations
  • Optimizing network resources

Recommended training includes the Core Infrastructure course and Networking in Google Cloud Platform. If you’re looking for hands-on practice, Qwiklabs offers labs for networking in the Google cloud and network performance and optimization.

Professional Cloud Security Engineer

Another newcomer to the Google certification portfolio is the Professional Cloud Security Engineer (CSE). An expert-level credential, CSEs are well-versed in industry security requirements, regulations, best practices, and security-related subjects and technologies, such as identity and access management, data protection using GCP, configuring security at the network level, analyzing logs, managing incidents, and recommending organization-wide security policies. CSEs also possess the skills necessary to design, implement and manage secure infrastructures on GCP.

The exam validates a candidate’s ability to:

  • Configure access within a cloud solution environment
  • Configure network security
  • Ensure data protection
  • Manage operations within a cloud solution environment
  • Ensure regulatory compliance

As with other certifications, Google provides a free exam outline and overviews plus in-depth discussions. In addition to the Core Infrastructure course, Google recommends taking the Security in Google Cloud Platform training and the Security and Identity Fundamentals Qwiklabs.

G Suite Credential

The G Suite cert aims at end users of Google’s productivity suite. As such, it’s likely to have only limited appeal for IT professionals, most of whom learn a productivity suite (MS Office, most typically) before they graduate from high school. The exam targets a candidate’s ability to communicate, work with, and manage tasks using the G Suite productivity and collaboration tools, including Drive (cloud-based storage), Gmail (cloud-based email and messaging), Hangouts Meet (online meetings), Docs (cloud-based document creation and editing), Sheets (cloud-based spreadsheets), Forms, and Slides (cloud-based presentation software).

The certification web page contains links to a number of training options including Qwiklabs, self-paced G Suite lessons, applied digital skills, and the G Suite Learning Center.

Google Cloud Platform Certifications

For those who work around or with the Google Cloud Platform, the current certifications seem like a very safe bet for career and personal development. Given high demand, relatively low cost and a single exam for these certifications, the risk-reward ratio looks quite favorable. Be sure to check them out, if you work (or would like to work) in an organization that uses this cloud platform.

Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/11157-google-certification-it-career-guide.html
Killexams : Best 5 Programming Certifications for IT Pros 2019

Anthropologists reckon that humans around the globe speak somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 distinct languages, with a number around 6,700 appearing most frequently in online sources. Nobody has conducted an exhaustive survey for all computer programming languages in use around the world, but there are focused studies available.

These studies include the U.S. Department of Defense Survey of Computing Languages (also known as the DoD Language Survey) conducted in 1995, which identified no fewer than 450 programming languages in use in various weapons and automated information systems in the 1970s, with 37 total languages recounted as part of the 1995 survey of languages in use for weapons systems.

CodeLani estimates that there are somewhere between 500 and 2,000 active general-purpose programming languages out there. The number of all active computer programming languages is estimated to be between 5,000 and 25,000. A number from hundreds to thousands of such languages appears both reasonable and defensible, depending on what types of systems and applications might be under consideration.

In this certification guide, we provide you with our top five programming certifications for IT professionals. These days, computer programming certifications are as much about development platforms and environments as they are about specific programming languages. You’ll find an interesting mix of language-focused or language-specific credentials available, such as C/C++ certifications as well as various platform-oriented credentials like Microsoft’s MCSD certification.

Because many desktop programs are now either universal or web-related apps, programming professionals may want to consider adding web and mobile application development credentials to their portfolios. Numerous excellent certifications and related training materials for web and mobile app developers are available. Some of the certifications discussed here, such as the MCSD, also transfer into certification programs for web or mobile apps.

We performed an informal job search that gives you an idea of the relative frequency with which our top five certifications appear in genuine job postings.

Job board search results (in alphabetical order, by certification)

Certification

SimplyHired

Indeed

LinkedIn Jobs

Linkup

Total

C Language Certified Associate

591

707

214

1,660

3,172

Chef Badges (Chef Software)*

1,757

2,530

785

439

5,511

CSSLP [(ISC)2]

284

358

746

219

1,607

MCSD (Microsoft)

445

579

886

237

2,147

PCP (Puppet)

5,906

7,873

12,200

3,317

29,296

*Chef uses a badge certification format, and our search parameter focused on “Chef certified.”

Salaries vary depending on the job role, but, on average, software and application developers can expect to earn something over $85,000. Simply Hired reported average earnings for application developers at almost $85,000 and more than $91,000 for software developers. Earnings on the high side were reported at slightly less than $134,000 ($126,775 for application developers and $139,692 for software developers), with low earnings in the upper-$50,000s. Computer programmers earn slightly less, with average earnings reported at $70,400. Salaries ranged from lows in the mid-$50,000s to $92,077 for top earners.

C and C++ certifications

The programming languages C and C++ have been around for years, making their debut in the 1960s to 1970s (C) and the 1980s to 1990s (C++). Although nearly every college and university in the U.S. offers a C/C++ programming course, the C++ Institute and Pearson VUE decided to carve a niche in this part of the certification landscape by offering the world’s first international C/C++ certifications.

Candidates can choose the C or the C++ path and move up the certification ladder from associate to professional to senior. Of the six potential certifications, four certifications are currently available:

  • CLA: C Programming Language Certified Associate
  • CLP:  C Certified Professional Programmer
  • CPA: C++ Certified Associate Programmer
  • CPP: C++ Certified Professional Programmer

C++ Institute certifications are good for life, because these languages haven’t changed much over the years. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t high demand for such skills. And a C/C++ certification is a perfect steppingstone to many platform- and vendor-specific certs, such as the MCSD.

C/C++ facts and figures

Certification Name

C or C++ Associate and Professional C Programming Language Certified Associate (CLA)

C Certified Professional Programmer (CLP)

C++ Certified Associate Programmer (CPA)

C++ Certified Professional Programmer (CPP)

Prerequisites & Required Courses

Professional- and senior-level credentials require certification in the lower credential

Recommended: Online courses are free and offer a 50 percent discount on the cost of the exam if you score at least 70 percent on the course exam

Number of Exams

One exam per credential (up to 75 minutes, 55 to 65 questions, 80 percent required to pass)

Exams are administered by Pearson VUE

Cost Per Exam  

$295 for nonstudents (includes one free retake)

$147.50 if taken in conjunction with the course (which is free)

Retakes are free for candidates who paid full exam price or who completed the CPP course in self-study mode. Retake vouchers must be requested within 30 days after exam fail. Retake vouchers are valid for 45 days

URL

http://cppinstitute.org/

Self-Study Materials

C++ Institute maintains links on the respective exam webpage to the exam syllabus, exam objectives, study resources and more. Free online courses are available at the C++ Institute.

Chef-certified badges

As job board numbers demonstrate, there’s strong demand for Chef certified professionals. This earns Chef certifications a well-deserved place on this year’s top five list. All Chef Software certifications are offered in the form of badges, providing professionals flexibility to match skills to emerging technologies and problems. At present, there are five badges:

  • Basic Chef Fluency: An entry-level badge that includes basic chef terminology, describing Chef concepts and features, design philosophy, workflow basics and basic Chef code. 
  • Local Cookbook Deployment: The exam is available in Windows or Linux environments, and covers search and data bags, troubleshooting, testing frameworks, Cookbook components, test kitchens, Chef DK tools, and authoring and setup theory for Cookbooks. Candidates should be able to develop a basic Chef Cookbook and automate existing processes with Chef recipes.
  • Extending Chef: Extending Chef badge holders can add extended features and functionality, customize Chef, use Ohai and write custom Ruby classes. exam subjects include extending Ohai, custom resources, Chef handlers, definitions and handlers, Knife plugins, CHEP API, and basic Ruby.
  • Deploying Cookbooks: This badge targets professionals who are proficient managing nodes and deploying Chef recipes. exam subjects include Chef Run anatomy, uploading Cookbooks to Chef Server, using Knife, bootstrapping, Chef Solo, Policy Files, search, Data Bags, roles and environments.
  • Auditing with InSpec: A successful candidate will possess in-depth knowledge of InSpec core principles and is able to execute InSpec in remote and local environments. The exam covers installing and running InSpec, InSpec profiles, troubleshooting, and InSpec controls and metadata.

All badges are good for three years.

Chef facts and figures

Certification Name

Basic Chef Fluency

Local Cookbook Development

Extending Chef

Deploying Cookbooks

Auditing with InSpec

Prerequisites & Required Courses

None, but training is highly recommended

Number of Exams

One exam per badge

Basic Chef Fluency exam is 60 minutes; all other exams are 90 minutes. All exams consist of a combination of performance challenges and multiple-choice questions

Cost Per Exam  

Basic Chef Fluency exam: $75

All other exams: $99

URL

https://training.chef.io/certification

Self-Study Materials

The Learn Chef Rally offers free learning opportunities, including learning tracks, modules and demos. Online instructor-led training is available. Candidates can expect to pay between $495 and $995 depending on the course. In-person training is also available. Community forums, a skills library and other training resources are also available from Chef.

CSSLP: Certified Secure Software Lifecycle Professional

Like other (ISC)2 certifications, the CSSLP is a vendor-neutral credential relevant to many kinds of programming and development projects. Aimed at software developers, engineers, architects, QA and penetration testers, security specialists and the like, the CSSLP recognizes competency in securing applications throughout the software development lifecycle.

The exam covers all phases of this lifecycle, including secure software concepts, requirements, design, implementation and coding, and testing. Candidates should also be up to speed on the eight CSSLP Common Body of Knowledge (CBK) domains which include software concepts, requirements, design, implementation/programming, testing, lifecycle management, deployment, operations and maintenance, along with supply chain and software acquisition.

Interestingly, the CSSLP was the first (ISC)2 exam to be offered through Pearson VUE testing centers, instead of occasional pencil-and-paper testing at various scheduled and proctored testing sites globally. As such, this certification has done a lot to bring (ISC)2 into the 21st century, cert-wise. According to (ISC)2, the CSSLP is the only credential that currently emphasizes building security into the software development lifecycle phases and inclusion of best practices.

CSSLP facts and figures

Certification Name

Certified Secure Software Lifecycle Professional (CSSLP)

Prerequisites & Required Courses

At least four years’ full-time work-related experience in the software development lifecycle (SDLC) in at least one of the eight CSSLP domains, or three years’ experience plus a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in an IT-related field such as computer science or information technology

Passing score on the CSSLP exam

Endorsement from (ISC)2 active member within nine months of exam completion

Recertification is required every three years via 90 credits of continuing professional education (CPE); must earn 30 CPE credits each year; annual maintenance fee is $100

Number of Exams

One (four hours, 175 questions, 700 out of 1,000 points required to pass)
Exam administered by Pearson VUE

Cost Per Exam  

$599

URL

http://www.isc2.org/csslp/Default.aspx

Self-Study Materials

The certification webpage maintains links to multiple study tools, including exam outlines, textbooks, glossaries, study guides, interactive flashcards and training seminars.
Third-party certification prep materials are available at Amazon and other retailers.

MCSD App Builder: Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer App Builder

The Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer is Microsoft’s prevailing certification for programmers and application developers. Microsoft professionals are probably most familiar with its five former MCSD credentials: Web Applications, SharePoint Applications, Azure Solutions Architect, Application Lifecycle Management and Universal Windows Platform.

Microsoft revamped its MCSD certification program in September 2016 to more closely align with technical requirements commonly used by the Microsoft Partner Network. Most MCSD credentials are now retired. The MCSD: Azure Solutions Architect was replaced by the MCSE: Cloud and Platform Infrastructure credential. All other MCSD credentials (Web Applications, SharePoint Applications, Application Lifecycle Management and Universal Windows Platform) have been replaced by the MCSD: App Builder credential discussed here.

MCSD: App Builder focuses on application developers and validates a candidate’s knowledge and the technical skills necessary to build web services, web applications and mobile apps. To earn this credential, candidates must first obtain either the Microsoft Certified Solutions Associate (MCSA): Web Applications or MCSA: Universal Windows Platform certification. Then candidates must pass one MCSD elective exam. Currently, elective exams include concentrations in the following areas:

  • Microsoft Azure (developing solutions, architecting solutions, and developing Azure and web services)
  • Microsoft Visual Studio (administering team foundation servers, software testing and application lifecycle management)

Recertification is not required for the MCSD: App Builder credential. However, candidates may re-earn the credential each year by passing a new elective exam that is added to their transcripts. Microsoft encourages this behavior as a form of constant education or ongoing certification, in fact.

MSCD facts and figures

Certification Name

Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer (MCSD): App Builder

Prerequisites & Required Courses

Required:

Microsoft Certified Solutions Associate (MCSA): Web Applications or MCSA: Universal Windows Platform (two exams each)

Recommended:
Training recommended but not required

Two to three years’ experience developing solutions using Microsoft development technologies for mobile or web

Number of Exams

One MCSD elective exam (choose from the following):

70-357: Developing Mobile Apps

70-480: Programming in HTML5 with JavaScript and CSS3

70-487: Developing Microsoft Azure and Web Services

70-483: Programming in C#

70-486: Developing ASP.NET MVC Web Applications

70-487: Developing Microsoft Azure and Web Services

Cost Per Exam  

$165 per exam; prices vary by location outside the U.S.

URL

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/learning/mcsd-app-builder-certification.aspx

Self-Study Materials

Exam reference materials, including practice tests, instructor-led training, self-paced training kits, Microsoft Press books and Microsoft online resources, are available at Microsoft Learning.

PCP: Puppet Professional 2019 Certification

The Puppet Certified Professional (PCP) first appeared in this roundup in 2017. Founded in 2005 by Luke Kanies, Puppet is best known for its configuration management tool (offered in both open source and commercial formats) and its automation software. Since its inception, Puppet has grown considerably. Its reach now extends to offices not only in the U.S. (Portland, Oregon) but in London, Ireland, Australia and the Czech Republic as well. According to Puppet, more than 35,000 companies use the Puppet tool and software.

The PCP validates a candidate’s technical knowledge and expertise administering systems using Puppet. While there are no formal requirements to earn the PCP, successful candidates should possess an understanding of Puppet documentation and best practices, working with data (developing modules, external sources and data separation), and maintaining OS components.

Candidates should also have hands-on experience using Puppet, and the company highly recommends that candidates take both the Foundation and Practitioner training courses (or possess equivalent skills) before attempting the exam. The cert does not expire, but exams are updated to match the current version of Puppet software. Candidates should plan on recertifying about every 18 months on the newest version of Puppet.

Puppet Professional facts and figures

Certification Name

Puppet Professional Certification (PCP)

Prerequisites & Required Courses

Familiarity with Puppet documentation, best practices and the Puppet Language Style Guide

Experience working with Puppet automation software and administration of system infrastructure; ability to develop basic modules
Recommended: Puppet Fundamentals and Practitioner training courses or equivalent skills

Number of Exams

One: PPT 206 – System Administration Using Puppet (60 questions, 90 minutes)

Cost Per Exam  

$200
Exam administered by QuestionMark

URL

https://puppet.com/support-services/certification

Self-Study Materials

The certification and exam webpages maintain links to various Puppet docs, the Puppet Language Style Guide, practice exams, the Puppet Enterprise Users Guide, training opportunities (Fundamentals and Practitioner skill level) and more.

Beyond the top 5: More programming certifications

There are lots of other certification programs that can help further the careers and professional development of IT professionals who work as programmers. While the Adobe Certified Expert didn’t make the leader board this year, it is still a credential worth pursuing. The SaltStack Certified Engineer is another powerful automation framework for data center infrastructures and application environments used worldwide.

On the one hand, it makes sense to investigate the plethora of vendor-neutral certification programs available for those who work with specific programming languages or development platforms, particularly those that are open source, like the Zend Framework and Zend PHP, or Ruby on Rails and the Ruby Association’s Certified Ruby Programmer credential. You can also find offerings from providers such as Brainbench and ExpertRating. These and similar organizations offer programmer training and testing on dozens to hundreds of topics, including such white-hot areas as mobile applications development, Android and iOS, and web programming.

In addition, a careful examination of vendor-specific certification programs with broad developer footprints – such as BMC, IBM, SAS, Oracle (Java programming, OCA, OCP, OCM, OCE and more) and Teradata – can also open doors for developers and provide ongoing job or contract opportunities. Those interested in programming certifications have no shortage of choices to make. That’s why we urge candidates to choose carefully and wisely, especially if venturing outside items covered in this article.

Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:00:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/10733-programming-certifications.html
Killexams : Startups News No result found, try new keyword!Showcase your company news with guaranteed exposure both in print and online Join the BBJ for our second annual Biotech in Boston program… Ready to embrace the fast-paced future we’re all ... Fri, 08 Jul 2022 09:12:00 -0500 text/html https://www.bizjournals.com/news/technology/startups Killexams : Gratomic Provides Global Natural Graphite Pricing Update

TORONTO, ON / ACCESSWIRE / June 23, 2022 / Gratomic Inc. (TSX-V:GRAT) (OTCQX:CBULF) (FSE:CB28) ("Gratomic" or the "Company") reports that global natural graphite pricing has increased significantly over the course of the last year, with demand continuing to outstrip supply. This trend is expected to continue as the electric vehicle market experiences rapid growth.

Gratomic Inc., Thursday, June 23, 2022, Press release picture

Gratomic Inc., Thursday, June 23, 2022, Press release picture

According to Benchmark Mineral Intellegence (benchmarkminerals.com), graphite prices have continued to increase steadily since January 2021 on all types of graphite with fines increasing 44.50% from USD $500/ton in January 2021 to USD $723/ton in May of 2022. Large flake graphite increased 19.85% from USD $983/ton in January of 2021 to USD $1,187/ton in May of 2022. Spherical graphite increased 8.39% from USD $2,958/ton in January 2021 to USD $3,207/ton in May of 2022.

There has been a 35.56% increase in -100 mesh, 90-93% Cg and a 51.82% increase in -100 mesh, 94-95% Cg which is of significance to the electric vehicle li-ion battery industry, as this is reflective of the specific graphite size required for anode production. The Price Increases in Anode Grade Graphite Over Time chart outlines the overall price growth from January 2021 to today, where 90-93% Cg increased from USD $450/ton in January 2021 to USD $610/ton in May of 2022. In the same period, the 94-95% Cg graphite composite increased from USD $550/ton to USD $835/ton.

According to an article written by Priscilla Berrara and published in January 2022 by Investor News Network (INN), "Benchmark Mineral Intelligence data shows demand for natural graphite from the battery segment amounted to 400,000 tonnes in 2021, with that number expected to scale up to 3 million tonnes by 2030. Demand for synthetic graphite came to about 300,000 tonnes in 2021 and is expected to increase to 1.5 million tonnes by 2030."

The article goes on to mention that only specific types of natural graphite are viable options for lithium-ion battery production, and that availability is limited. This combined with the fact that graphite is the second largest component by weight in a li-ion battery, sets the stage for increased demand over time. Read the full article HERE.

About Gratomic

Gratomic is a multinational company with projects in Namibia, Brazil, and Canada. The Company is focused on becoming a leading global graphite supplier and aims to secure a strong position in the EV (Electric Vehicle) battery supply chain. With the continued development of its flagship Aukam project and further exploration on the Company's Capim Grosso property, Gratomic sets itself apart by seeking out unique top-quality assets around the world. True to its roots, the Company will continue to explore graphite opportunities displaying potential for development. The Company ranked third place in the top 10 preforming mining stocks on the 2022 TSX Venture 50™.

Large quantities of high-quality vein graphite have been shipped for testing to confirm its viability as an anode material. Gratomic is confident that the test results will provide a unique competitive advantage in its desired target markets. The Company will continue to update the public on the status of these tests and will provide results as soon as they become available.

The Company has formed a collaboration agreement with Forge Nano. With its patented ALD (Atomic Layer Deposition) coating, this cooperation with Forge Nano is a key element to support Gratomic's strategies towards the value-added phases of production of graphite for anode applications, namely micronization, spheronization and coating, making Gratomic graphite a preferred choice for use in lithium-ion batteries.

For more information: visit the website at https://www.gratomic.ca/ or contact us at:

Arno Brand at abrand@gratomic.ca or (416) 561- 4095

Subscribe at gratomic.ca/contact-us/ to be added to our email list.

For Marketing and Media information, please email: info@gratomic.ca

"Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release."

Forward Looking Statements:

This news release contains forward-looking statements, which relate to future events or future performance and reflect management's current expectations and assumptions. Such forward-looking statements reflect management's current beliefs and are based on assumptions made by and information currently available to the Company. Investors are cautioned that these forward-looking statements are neither promises nor guarantees and are subject to risks and uncertainties that may cause future results to differ materially from those expected. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date hereof and, except as required under applicable securities legislation, the Company does not assume any obligation to update or revise them to reflect new events or circumstances. All of the forward-looking statements made in this press release are qualified by these cautionary statements and by those made in our filings with SEDAR in Canada (available at www.sedar.com)

SOURCE: Gratomic Inc.

View source version on accesswire.com:
https://www.accesswire.com/706335/Gratomic-Provides-Global-Natural-Graphite-Pricing-Update

Fri, 24 Jun 2022 08:40:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gratomic-provides-global-natural-graphite-134300355.html
Killexams : Where to Buy Stocks Online – How to Buy Stocks at Stock Brokers

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

Thu, 07 Jul 2022 17:25:00 -0500 en-US text/html https://www.business2community.com/stocks/where-to-buy-stocks
Killexams : Process Algebra: Equational Theories of Communicating Processes

Aceto, L., Bloom, B., & Vaandrager, F.W. (1994). Turning SOS Rules into Equations. Information and Computation, 111(1), 1-52.

Aceto, L., & Fokkink, W.J. (2004). Guest Editors' Introduction: Special Issue on Structural Operational Semantics. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 60–61, 1-2.

Aceto, L., Fokkink, W.J., & Ingólfsdóttir, A. (1998). A Cook's Tour of Equational Axiomatization for Prefix Iteration. Pages 20-34 of: Nivat M. (ed), Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures, FoSSaCS 1998, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 1387. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Aceto, L., Fokkink, W.J., & Verhoef, C. (2001). Structural Operational Semantics. Pages 197-292 of: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., & Smolka, S.A. (eds), Handbook of Process Algebra.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Aceto, L., & Hennessy, M. (1992). Termination, Deadlock, and Divergence. Journal of the ACM, 39(1), 147-187.

Andova, S. (2002). Probabilistic Process Algebra. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Austry, D., & Boudol, G. (1984). Algèbre de Processus et Synchronisation. Theoretical Computer Science, 30(1), 91-131. In French.

Baeten, J.C.M. (1986). Procesalgebra. Programmatuurkunde. Kluwer, Deventer, the Netherlands. In Dutch.

Baeten, J.C.M. (2003). Embedding Untimed into Timed Process Algebra: The Case for Explicit Termination. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 13(4), 589-618.

Baeten, J.C.M. (2005). A Brief History of Process Algebra. Theoretical Computer Science, 335(2/3), 131-146.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Basten, T. (2001). Partial-Order Process Algebra (and its Relation to Petri Nets). Pages 769-872 of: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., & Smolka, S.A. (eds), Handbook ofProcess Algebra.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Bergstra, J.A. (1988). Global Renaming Operators in Concrete Process Algebra. Information and Computation, 78(3), 205-245.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Bergstra, J.A. (1996). Discrete Time Process Algebra. Formal Aspects ofComputing, 8(2), 188-208.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Bergstra, J.A. (1997). Process Algebra with Propositional Signals. Theoretical Computer Science, 177(2), 381-406.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Bergstra, J.A. (1998). Deadlock Behaviour in Split and ST Bisimulation Semantics. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 16(2), 101-114. Proceedings Expressiveness in Concurrency, 5th International Workshop, EXPRESS 1998.

Baeten, J.C.M., Bergstra, J.A., Hoare, C.A.R., Milner, R., Parrow, J., & de Simone, R. (1991). The Variety of Process Algebra. Deliverable ESPRIT Basic Research Action 3006, CONCUR. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Baeten, J.C.M., Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1986). Syntax and Defining Equations for an Interrupt Mechanism in Process Algebra. Fundamenta Informaticae, IX(2), 127-168.

Baeten, J.C.M., Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1987a). Conditional Axioms and α/β-Calculus in Process Algebra. Pages 77-103 of: Wirsing, M. (ed), Formal Description of Programming Concepts - III, IFIP Conference, Proceedings.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Baeten, J.C.M., Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1987b). On the Consistency of Koomen's Fair Abstraction Rule. Theoretical Computer Science, 51(1/2), 129-176.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Bravetti, M. (2005). A Ground-Complete Axiomatization of Finite State Processes in Process Algebra. Pages 248-262 of: Abadi, M., & de Alfaro, L. (eds), CONCUR 2005 - Concurrency Theory, 16th International Conference, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 3653. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Bravetti, M. (2006). A Generic Process Algebra. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 162, 65-71. Proceedings Essays on Algebraic Process Calculi, Workshop, APC 25.

Baeten, J.C.M., Corradini, F., & Grabmayer, C.A. (2007). A Characterization of Regular Expressions under Bisimulation. Journal of the ACM, 54(2), 6.1-28.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Glabbeek, R.J. van. (1987). Merge and Termination in Process Algebra. Pages 153-172 of: Nori, K.V. (ed), Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science, 7th Conference, FST & TCS 1987, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 287. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Middelburg, C.A. (2001). Process Algebra with Timing: Real Time and Discrete Time. Pages 627-684 of: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., & Smolka, S.A. (eds), Handbook ofProcess Algebra.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Middelburg, C.A. (2002). Process Algebra with Timing. Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Baeten, J.C.M., Mousavi, M.R., & Reniers, M.A. (2005). Timing the Untimed: Terminating Successfully while Being Conservative. Pages 251-279 of: Middeldorp, A., Oostrom, V. van, Raamsdonk, F. van, & Vrijer, R. de (eds), Processes, Terms and Cycles: Steps on the Road to Infinity, Essays Dedicated to Jan Willem Klop on the Occasion ofhis 60th Birthday. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 3838. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Reniers, M.A. (2004). Timed Process Algebra (With a Focus on Explicit Termination and Relative-Timing). Pages 59-97 of: Bernardo, M., & Corradini, F. (eds), Formal Methods for the Design of Real-Time Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 3185. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Reniers, M.A. (2007). Duplication of Constants in Process Algebra. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming, 70(2), 151-171.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Verhoef, C. (1993). A Congruence Theorem for Structured Operational Semantics with Predicates. Pages 477-492 of: Best, E. (ed), Concurrency Theory, 4th International Conference, CONCUR 1993, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 715. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Verhoef, C. (1995). Concrete Process Algebra. Pages 149-269 of: Abramsky, S., Gabbay, D.M., & Maibaum, T.S.E. (eds), Handbook of Logic in Computer Science, vol. 4. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Baeten, J.C.M., & Weijland, W.P. (1990). Process Algebra. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, no. 18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Bakker, J.W. de, & Zucker, J.I. (1982a). Denotational Semantics of Concurrency. Pages 153-158 of: Theory of Computing, 14th Annual ACM Symposium, Proceedings. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Bakker, J.W. de, & Zucker, J.I. (1982b). Processes and the Denotational Semantics of Concurrency. Information and Control, 54(1/2), 70-120.

Bartlett, K.A., Scantlebury, R.A., & Wilkinson, P.T. (1969). A Note on Reliable Full-Duplex Transmission over Half-Duplex Lines. Communications ofthe ACM, 12(5), 260-261.

Basten, T. (1996). Branching Bisimilarity is an Equivalence Indeed!Information Processing Letters, 58(3), 141-147.

Basten, T. (1998). In Terms ofNets: System Design with Petri Nets and Process Algebra. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computing Science, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Bekic, H. (1971). Towards a Mathematical Theory of Processes. Tech. rept. TR 25.125. IBM Laboratory Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Bekic, H. (1984). Programming Languages and Their Definition, H., Beki (1936-1982), Selected Papers edited by C.B. Jones. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 177. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Bergstra, J.A., Bethke, I., & Ponse, A. (1994). Process Algebra with Iteration and Nesting. The Computer Journal, 37(4), 243-258.

Bergstra, J.A., Fokkink, W.J., & Ponse, A. (2001). Process Algebra with Recursive Operations. Pages 333-389 of: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., & Smolka, S.A. (eds), Handbook ofProcess Algebra.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1982). Fixed Point Semantics in Process Algebra. Tech. rept. IW 208. Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1984a). Process Algebra for Synchronous Communication. Information and Control, 60(1/3), 109-137.

Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1984b). The Algebra of Recursively Defined Processes and the Algebra of Regular Processes. Pages 82-95 of: Paredaens, J. (ed), Automata, Languages and Programming, 11th Colloquium, ICALP 1984, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 172. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1985). Algebra of Communicating Processes with Abstraction. Theoretical Computer Science, 37(1), 77-121.

Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1986a). Algebra of Communicating Processes. Pages 89-138 of: Bakker, J.W. de, Hazewinkel, M., & Lenstra, J.K. (eds), Mathematics and Computer Science I, CWI Symposium, Proceedings. CWI Monographs, no. 1. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1986b). Process Algebra: Specification and Verification in Bisimulation Semantics. Pages 61-94 of: Hazewinkel, M., Lenstra, J.K., & Meertens, L.G.L.T. (eds), Mathematics and Computer Science II, CWI Symposium, Proceedings. CWI Monographs, no. 4. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1986c). Verification of an Alternating Bit Protocol by Means of Process Algebra. Pages 9-23 of: Bibel, W., & Jantke, K.P. (eds), Mathematical Methods of Specification and Synthesis of Software Systems 1985, International Spring School, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 215. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1988). A Complete Inference System for Regular Processes with Silent Moves. Pages 21-81 of: Drake, F.R., & Truss, J.K. (eds), Logic Colloquium, Proceedings.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Bergstra, J.A., & Klop, J.W. (1992). A Convergence Theorem in Process Algebra. Pages 164-195 of: Bakker, J.W. de, & Rutten, J.J.M.M. (eds), Ten Years of Concurrency Semantics.World Scientific, Singapore.

Bergstra, J.A., Klop, J.W., & Olderog, E.-R. (1987). Failures without Chaos: A new Process Semantics for Fair Abstraction. Pages 77-103 of: Wirsing, M. (ed), Formal Description of Programming Concepts - III, IFIP Conference, Proceedings.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Bergstra, J.A., Klop, J.W., & Tucker, J.V. (1985). Process Algebra with Asynchronous Communication Mechanisms. Pages 76-95 of: Brookes, S.D., Roscoe, A.W., & Winskel, G. (eds), Seminar on Concurrency, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 197. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Bergstra, J.A., & Middelburg, C.A. (2005). Process Algebra for Hybrid Systems. Theoretical Computer Science, 335(2/3), 215-280.

Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., & Zwaag, M.B. van der (2003). Branching Time and Orthogonal Bisimulation Equivalence. Theoretical Computer Science, 309(1-3), 313-355.

Bergstra, J.A., & Tiuryn, J. (1987). Process Algebra Semantics for Queues. Fundamenta Informaticae, X, 213-224.

Bergstra, J.A., & Tucker, J.V. (1984). Top Down Design and the Algebra of Communicating Processes. Science of Computer Programming, 5(2), 171-199.

Bosscher, D.J.B. (1997). Grammars Modulo Bisimulation. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Bradfield, J.C., & Stirling, C. (2001). Modal Logics and Mu-Calculi: An Introduction. Pages 293-330 of: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., & Smolka, S.A. (eds), Handbook of Process Algebra.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Brookes, S.D. (1983). On the Relationship of CCS and CSP. Pages 83-96 of: Diaz, J. (ed), Automata, Languages and Programming, 10th Colloquium, ICALP 1983, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 154. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Brookes, S.D., Hoare, C.A.R., & Roscoe, A.W. (1984). A Theory of Communicating Sequential Processes. Journal of the ACM, 31(3), 560-599.

Broy, M. (1987). Views on Queues. Science of Computer Programming, 11(1), 65-86.

Bundy, A. (1999). A Survey of Automated Deduction. Pages 153-174 of: Wooldridge, M.J., & Veloso, M. (eds), Artificial Intelligence Today: latest Trends and Developments. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1600. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Burris, S., & Sankappanavar, H.P. (1981). A Course in Universal Algebra. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Christensen, S. (1993). Decidability and Decomposition in Process Algebras. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, Department of Computer Science, Edinburgh, UK.

Clarke, E.M., Grumberg, O., & Peled, D.A. (2000). Model Checking.The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Cleaveland, R., Luttgen, G., & Natarajan, V. (2001). Priority in Process Algebra. Pages 711-765 of: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., & Smolka, S.A. (eds), Handbook of Process Algebra.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Copi, I.M., Elgot, C.C., & Wright, J.B. (1958). Realization of Events by Logical Nets. Journal of the ACM, 5(2), 181-196.

Corradini, F., D'Ortenzio, D., & Inverardi, P. (1999). On the Relationships among Four Timed Process Algebras. Fundamenta Informaticae, 38(4), 377-395.

D'Argenio, P.R. (1995). τ-Angelic Choice for Process Algebras (Revised Edition). Tech. rept., Universidad Nacional de La Plata, LIFIA, Depto. de Informática, Fac. de Cs. Exactas, La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Denvir, B.T., Harwood, W.T., Jackson, M.I., & Ray, M.J. (eds). (1985). The Analysis of Concurrent Systems, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 207. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Dershowitz, N., & Jouannaud, J.-P. (1990). Rewrite Systems. Pages 243-320 of: Leeuwen, J. van (ed), Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B: Formal Models and Semantics. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Dijkstra, E.W. (1975). Guarded Commands, Nondeterminacy, and Formal Derivation of Programs. Communications of the ACM, 18(8), 453-457.

Dijkstra, E.W. (1976). A Discipline ofProgramming.Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.

Floyd, R.W. (1967). Assigning Meanings to Programs. Pages 19-32 of: Schwartz, J.T. (ed), Symposium in Applied Mathematics, XIX, Proceedings. Mathematical Aspects of Computer Science. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, USA.

Fokkink, W.J. (1994). A Complete Equational Axiomatisation for Prefix Iteration. Information Processing Letters, 52(6), 333-337.

Fokkink, W.J. (2000). Introduction to Process Algebra. Texts in Theoretical Computer Science. An EATCS Series. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Francez, N. (1986). Fairness.Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Glabbeek, R.J. van. (1987). Bounded Nondeterminism and the Approximation Induction Principle in Process Algebra. Pages 336-247 of: Brandenburg, F.J., Vidal-Naquet, G., & Wirsing, M. (eds), Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, 4th Annual Symposium, STACS 1987, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 247. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Glabbeek, R.J. van. (1990). Comparative Concurrency Semantics, with Refinement of Actions. Ph.D. thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Glabbeek, R.J. van. (1993). The Linear Time - Branching Time Spectrum II: The Semantics of Sequential Systems with Silent Moves (Extended Abstract). Pages 66-81 of: Best, E. (ed), Concurrency Theory, 4th International Conference, CONCUR 1993, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 715. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Glabbeek, R.J. van. (1994). What is Branching Time Semantics and Why to Use it?Bulletin of the EATCS, 53, 190-198.

Glabbeek, R.J. van. (1997). Notes on the Methodology of CCS and CSP. Theoretical Computer Science, 177(2), 329-350.

Glabbeek, R.J. van. (2001). The Linear Time - Branching Time Spectrum I: The Semantics of Concrete, Sequential Processes. Pages 3-100 of: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., & Smolka, S.A. (eds), Handbook of Process Algebra.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Glabbeek, R.J. van, Luttik, S.P., & Trčka, N. (2008). Branching Bisimilarity with Explicit Divergence. Tech. rept. CS-R-08-25. Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Glabbeek, R.J. van, & Vaandrager, F.W. (1987). Petri Net Models for Algebraic Theories of Concurrency. Pages 224-242 of: Bakker, J.W. de, Nijman, A.J., & Treleaven, P.C. (eds), Parallel Architectures and Languages Europe, PARLE 1987, Proceedings, Volume II. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 259. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Glabbeek, R.J. van, & Vaandrager, F.W. (1989). Modular Specifications in Process Algebra — With Curious Queues. Pages 465-506 of: Wirsing, M., & Bergstra, J.A. (eds), Algebraic Methods: Theory, Tools and Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 394. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Glabbeek, R.J. van, & Vaandrager, F.W. (1993). Modular Specification of Process Algebras. Theoretical Computer Science, 113(2), 293-348.

Glabbeek, R.J. van, & Weijland, W.P. (1989). Branching Time and Abstraction in Bisimulation Semantics (extended abstract). Pages 613-618 of: Ritter, G.X. (ed), Information Processing 89, 11th IFIP World Computer Congress, Proceedings.Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., North-Holland, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Full version appeared as (Van Glabbeek & Weijland, 1996).

Glabbeek, R.J. van, & Weijland, W.P. (1996). Branching Time and Abstraction in Bisimulation Semantics. Journal of the ACM, 43(3), 555-600.

Gorrieri, R., & Laneve, C. (1995). Split and ST Bisimulation Semantics. Information and Computation, 118(2), 272-288.

Groote, J.F., Matthijssen, A., Weerdenburg, M. van, & Usenko, Y.S. (2006). From /xCRL to mCRL2: Motivation and Outline. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 162, 191-196. Proceedings Essays on Algebraic Process Calculi, Workshop, APC 25.

Groote, J.F., & Ponse, A. (1995). The Syntax and Semantics of μCRL. Pages 26-62 of: Ponse, A., Verhoef, C., & Vlijmen, S.F.M. van (eds), Algebra of Communicating Processes, ACP 1994, Proceedings. Workshops in Computing Series. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Groote, J.F., & Reniers, M.A. (2001). Algebraic Process Verification. Pages 1151-1208 of: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., & Smolka, S.A. (eds), Handbook of Process Algebra.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Halpern, J.Y., & Zuck, L.D. (1987). A Little Knowledge Goes a Long Way: Simple Knowledge-Based Derivations and Correctness Proofs for a Family of Protocols (Extended Abstract). Pages 269-280 of: Principles ofDistributed Computing, 6th Annual ACMSymposium, PODC 1987, Proc.ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Heijenoort, J. van. (1967). From Frege to Gödel: A Sourcebook in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931.Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Hennessy, M. (1981). A Term Model for Synchronous Processes. Information and Control, 51(1), 58-75.

Hennessy, M. (1988a). Algebraic Theory ofProcesses.MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Hennessy, M. (1988b). Axiomatising Finite Concurrent Processes. SIAM Journal on Computing, 17(5), 997-1017.

Hennessy, M., & Milner, R. (1980). On Observing Nondeterminism and Concurrency. Pages 299-309 of: Bakker, J.W. de, & Leeuwen, J. van (eds), Automata, Languages and Programming, 7th Colloquium, ICALP 1980, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 85. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Hennessy, M., & Regan, T. (1995). A Process Algebra for Timed Systems. Information and Computation, 117(2), 221-239.

Hoare, C.A.R. (1969). An Axiomatic Basis for Computer Programming. Communications of the ACM, 12(10), 576-580.

Hoare, C.A.R. (1978). Communicating Sequential Processes. Communications of the ACM, 21(8), 666-677.

Hoare, C.A.R. (1980). A Model for Communicating Sequential Processes. Pages 229-254 of: McKeag, R.M., & Macnaghten, A.M. (eds), On the Construction of Programs.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Hoare, C.A.R. (1985). Communicating Sequential Processes.Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.

Hussman, H. (1985). Unification in Conditional-Equational Theories. Pages 543-553 of: Caviness, B.F. (ed), European Conference on Computer Algebra, 10th International Conference, EUROCAL 1985, Proceedings Vol. 2: Research Contributions. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 204. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Jonsson, B., Yi, Wang, & Larsen, K.G. (2001). Probabilistic Extensions of Process Algebras. Pages 685-710 of: Bergstra, J.A., Ponse, A., & Smolka, S.A. (eds), Handbook of Process Algebra.Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Jouannaud, J.-P., & Muñoz, M. (1984). Termination of a Set of Rules Modulo a Set of Equations. Pages 175-193 of: Shostak, R.E. (ed), Automated Deduction, 7th International Conference, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 170. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Khadim, U. (2008). Process Algebra for Hybrid Systems: Comparison and Development. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Kleene, S.C. (1956). Representation of Events in Nerve Nets and Finite Automata. Pages 3-41 of: Shannon, C.E., & McCarthy, J. (eds), Automata Studies.Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, USA.

Klop, J.W. (1987). Term Rewriting Systems: A Tutorial. Bulletin of the EATCS, 32, 143-182.

Koomen, C.J. (1985). Algebraic Specification and Verification of Communication Protocols. Science ofComputer Programming, 5(1), 1-36.

Koymans, C.P.J., & Mulder, J.C. (1990). A Modular Approach to Protocol Verification Using Process Algebra. Pages 261-306 of: Baeten, J.C.M. (ed), Applications of Process Algebra.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Koymans, C.P.J., & Vrancken, J.L.M. (1985). Extending Process Algebra with the Empty Process 6. Logic Group Preprint Series 1. Utrecht University, Philosophy Department, Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Kranakis, E. (1987). Fixed Point Equations with Parameters in the Projective Model. Information and Computation, 75(3), 264-288.

Lamport, L. (1987). A Fast Mutual Exclusion Algorithm. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 5(1), 1-11.

Larsen, K.G., & Milner, R. (1987). Verifying a Protocol Using Relativized Bisimulation. Pages 126-135 of: Ottmann, Th. (ed), Automata, Languages and Programming, 14th International Colloquium, ICALP 1987, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 267. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Larsen, K.G., & Skou, A. (1991). Bisimulation through Probabilistic Testing. Information and Computation, 94(1), 1-28.

Linz, P. (2001). An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata.Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury, MA, USA.

Luttik, S.P. (2002). Choice Quantification in Process Algebra. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Department of Computer Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

MacLane, S., & Birkhoff, G. (1967). Algebra.Macmillan, London, UK.

Markovski, J. (2008). Real and Stochastic Time in Process Algebras for Performance Evaluation. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Mauw, S., & Mulder, J.C. (1994). Regularity of BPA-Systems is Decidable. Pages 34-47 of: Jonsson, B., & Parrow, J. (eds), Concurrency Theory, 5th International Conference, CONCUR 1994, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 836. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Mauw, S., & Veltink, G.J. (eds). (1993). Algebraic Specification of Communication Protocols. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, no. 36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

McCarthy, J. (1963). A Basis for a Mathematical Theory of Computation. Pages 33-70 of: Braffort, P., & Hirshberg, D. (eds), Computer Programming and Formal Systems.North-Holland, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Milne, G.J. (1982). Abstraction and Nondeterminism in Concurrent Systems. Pages 358-364 of: Distributed Computing Systems, 3rd International Conference, ICDCS 1982, Proceedings.IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA.

Milne, G.J. (1983). CIRCAL: A Calculus for Circuit Description. Integration, the VLSI Journal, 1(2-3), 121-160.

Milne, G.J., & Milner, R. (1979). Concurrent Processes and Their Syntax. Journal of the ACM, 26(2), 302-321.

Milner, R. (1973). An Approach to the Semantics of Parallel Programs. Pages 285-301 of: Convegno di Informatica Teoretica, Proceedings.Instituto di Elaborazione della Informazione, Pisa, Italy.

Milner, R. (1975). Processes: A Mathematical Model of Computing Agents. Pages 157-174 of: Rose, H.E., & Shepherdson, J.C. (eds), Logic Colloquium, Proceedings.North-Holland, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Milner, R. (1978a). Algebras for Communicating Systems. In AFCET/SMF Joint Colloquium in Applied Mathematics, Proceedings. Paris, France. Also available as Tech. rept. CSR-25-78, University of Edinburgh, Computer Science Department, Edinburgh, UK, 1978.

Milner, R. (1978b). Synthesis of Communicating Behaviour. Pages 71-83 of: Winkowski, J. (ed), Mathematical Foundations ofComputer Science, 7th Symposium, MFCS 1978, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 64. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Milner, R. (1979). Flowgraphs and Flow Algebras. Journal of the ACM, 26(4), 794-818.

Milner, R. (1980). A Calculus ofCommunicating Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 92. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Milner, R. (1983). Calculi for Synchrony and Asynchrony. Theoretical Computer Science, 25(3), 267-310.

Milner, R. (1989). Communication and Concurrency.Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.

Milner, R. (1999). Communicating and Mobile Systems: the Pi-Calculus.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Moller, F. (1989). Axioms for Concurrency. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, Computer Science Department, Edinburgh, UK.

Moller, F., & Tofts, C. (1990). A Temporal Calculus of Communicating Systems. Pages 401-415 of: Baeten, J.C.M., & Klop, J.W. (eds), Theories of Concurrency: Unification and Extension, CONCUR 1990, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 458. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Mousavi, M.R., & Reniers, M.A. (2005). Orthogonal Extensions in Structural Operational Semantics. Pages 1214-1225 of: Automata, Languages and Programming, 32nd International Colloquium, ICALP 2005, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 3580. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Mousavi, M.R., Reniers, M.A., & Groote, J.F. (2007). SOS Formats and Meta-Theory: 20 Years After. Theoretical Computer Science, 373(3), 238-272.

Nicollin, X., & Sifakis, J. (1994). The Algebra of Timed Processes ATP: Theory and Application. Information and Computation, 114(1), 131-178.

Oguztuzun, H.M. (1989). A Game Characterization of the Observational Equivalence of Processes. Pages 195-196 of: Algebraic Methodology and Software Technology, 1st Conference, AMAST1989, Proceedings.Iowa City, IA, USA.

Osborne, M., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A Course in Game Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Owicki, S., & Gries, D. (1976). Verifying Properties of Parallel Programs: An Axiomatic Approach. Communications of the ACM, 19(5), 279-285.

Park, D.M.R. (1981). Concurrency and Automata on Infinite Sequences. Pages 167-183 of: Deussen, P. (ed), Theoretical Computer Science, 5th GIConference, Proc. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 104. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Parrow, J. (1985). Fairness Properties in Process Algebra — With Applications in Communication Protocol Verification. Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, Department of Computer Systems, Uppsala, Sweden.

Petri, C.A. (1962). Kommunikation mit Automaten. Ph.D. thesis, Institut fuer Instrumentelle Mathematik, Bonn, Germany. In German.

Plotkin, G.D. (1976). A Powerdomain Construction. SIAM Journal of Computing, 5(3), 452-487.

Plotkin, G.D. (1981). A Structural Approach to Operational Semantics. Tech. rept. DAIMI FN-19. Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Ponse, A. (1992). Process Algebras with Data. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Department of Computer Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Pratt, V.R. (1982). On the Composition of Processes. Pages 213-223 of: Principles of Programming Languages, 9th ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium, POPL 1982, Proceedings.ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Quemada, J., de Frutos, D., & Azcorra, A. (1993). TIC: A Timed Calculus. Formal Aspects of Computing, 5(3), 224-252.

Reed, G.M., & Roscoe, A.W. (1988). A Timed Model for Communicating Sequential Processes. Theoretical Computer Science, 58(1-3), 249-261.

Sangiorgi, D., & Walker, D.J. (2001). The Pi-Calculus: A Theory of Mobile Processes.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Schneider, S.A. (2000). Concurrent and Real-Time Systems (the CSP Approach).John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.

Scott, D.S., & Strachey, C. (1971). Towards a Mathematical Semantics for Computer Languages. Pages 19-46 of: Fox, J. (ed), Computers and Automata, Symposium, Proceedings.Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn Press, New York, NY, USA.

Sewell, P. (1997). Nonaxiomatisability of Equivalences over Finite State Processes. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 90(1-3), 163-191.

Smullyan, R. (1982). The Lady or the Tiger? And Other Logic Puzzles Including a Mathematical Novel that Features Gödel's Great Discovery.Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, NY, USA.

Troeger, D.R. (1993). Step Bisimulation is Pomset Equivalence on a Parallel Language Without Explicit Internal Choice. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 3(1), 25-62.

Usenko, Y.S. (2002). Linearization in muCRL. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Vaandrager, F.W. (1986). Verification oofTwo Communication Protocols by Means of Process Algebra. Tech. rept. CS-R8608. CWI, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Vereijken, J.J. (1997). Discrete-Time Process Algebra. Ph.D. thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.

Verhoef, C. (1994). A General Conservative Extension Theorem in Process Algebra. Pages 149-168 of: Olderog, E.-R. (ed), Programming Concepts, Methods and Calculi, IFIP TC2/WG2.1/WG2.2/WG2.3 Working Conference, PROCOMET 1994, Proceedings. IFIP Transactions, vol. A-56. North-Holland, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Vrancken, J.L.M. (1997). The Algebra of Communicating Processes with Empty Process. Theoretical Computer Science, 177(2), 287-328.

Walker, D.J. (1990). Bisimulation and Divergence. Information and Computation, 85(2), 202-241.

Weijland, W.P. (1989). The Algebra of Synchronous Processes. Fundamenta Informaticae, XII, 139-162.

Winskel, G. (1982). Event Structure Semantics for CCS and Related Languages. Pages 561-576 of: Nielsen, M., & Schmidt, E.M. (eds), Automata, Languages and Programming, 9th Colloquium, ICALP 1982, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 140. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Yi, Wang (1991). CCS + Time = An Interleaving Model for Real Time Systems. Pages 217-228 of: Leane Albert, J., Monien, B., & Rodriguez Artalejo, M. (eds), Automata, Languages and Programming, 18th International Colloquium, ICALP 1991, Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, no. 510. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Thu, 14 Apr 2022 03:32:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/process-algebra-equational-theories-of-communicating-processes/0A091BDAA17DA4D3D30FCD6F52E0E6B8
C2090-320 exam dump and training guide direct download
Training Exams List