Advertisement

Execution Trace Exploration and Analysis Using Ontologies

  • Newres Al Haider
  • Benoit Gaudin
  • John Murphy
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7186)

Abstract

Dynamic analysis is the analysis of the properties of a running program. In order to perform dynamic analysis, information about the running program is often collected through execution traces. Exploring and analyzing these traces can be an issue due to their size and that knowledge of a human expert is often needed to derive the required conclusions. In this paper we provide a framework in which the semantics of execution traces, as well as that of dynamic analyses, are formally represented through ontologies. In this framework the exploration and analysis of the traces is enabled through semantic queries, and enhanced further through automated reasoning on the ontologies. We will also provide ontologies to represent traces and some basic dynamic analysis techniques, along with semantic queries that enable these techniques. Finally we will illustrate our approach through an example.

Keywords

Dynamic Analysis Resource Description Framework Description Logic Semantic Query Trace Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Joseki sparql server, http://www.joseki.org
  3. 3.
    The world wide web consortium, w3c, http://www.w3.org
  4. 4.
    AI Haider, N., Nixon, P., Gaudin, B.: An approach for modeling dynamic analysis using ontologies. In: WODA 2010: Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Dynamic Analysis, pp. 1–6. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antoniou, G., Franconi, E., van Harmelen, F.: Introduction to Semantic Web Ontology Languages. In: Eisinger, N., Małuszyński, J. (eds.) Reasoning Web 2005. LNCS, vol. 3564, pp. 1–21. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baader, F.: The description logic handbook: theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge Univ. Pr. (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ball, T.: The Concept of Dynamic Analysis. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes 24(6), 216–234 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bizer, C., Schultz, A.: The berlin sparql benchmark. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems-Special Issue on Scalability and Performance of Semantic Web Systems (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brachman, R.J., Levesque, H.J.: The tractability of subsumption in frame-based description languages. In: Proc. of the 4th Nat. Conf. on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI 1984), pp. 34–37 (1984)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cardoso, J.: The semantic web vision: Where are we? IEEE Intelligent Systems 22(5), 84–88 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carroll, J.J., Dickinson, I., Dollin, C., Reynolds, D., Seaborne, A., Wilkinson, K.: Jena: implementing the semantic web recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 13th International World Wide Web Conference on Alternate Track Papers & Posters, pp. 74–83. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J.R., Benjamins, V.R.: What are ontologies, and why do we need them? IEEE Intelligent Systems 14(1), 20–26 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cornelissen, B., Zaidman, A., van Deursen, A., Moonen, L., Koschke, R.: A systematic survey of program comprehension through dynamic analysis. Technical Report TUD-SERG-2008-033, Delft University of Technology (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Della Valle, E., Ceri, S., van Harmelen, F., Fensel, D.: It’s a streaming world! reasoning upon rapidly changing information. IEEE Intelligent Systems 24(6), 83–89 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Gruber, T.R.: Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 43(5-6), 907–928 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gruber, T.: Ontology, entry in the encyclopedia of database systems (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haarslev, V., Möller, R.: Description of the racer system and its applications. In: Goble, C.A., McGuinness, D.L., Möller, R., Patel-Schneider, P.F. (eds.) Description Logics. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 49 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hamou-Lhadj, A., Lethbridge, T.C.: Measuring various properties of execution traces to help build better trace analysis tools. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, ICECCS 2005, pp. 559–568 (June 2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hamou-Lhadj, A., Lethbridge, T.C.: A survey of trace exploration tools and techniques. In: CASCON 2004: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, pp. 42–55. IBM Press (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoffman, K.J., Eugster, P., Jagannathan, S.: Semantics-aware trace analysis. SIGPLAN Not. 44(6), 453–464 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kiryakov, A., Ognyanov, D., Manov, D.: OWLIM – A Pragmatic Semantic Repository for OWL. In: Dean, M., Guo, Y., Jun, W., Kaschek, R., Krishnaswamy, S., Pan, Z., Sheng, Q.Z. (eds.) WISE 2005 Workshops. LNCS, vol. 3807, pp. 182–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Klyne, G., Carroll, J.J., McBride, B.: Resource description framework (RDF): Concepts and abstract syntax. Changes (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B., Bock, C., Fokoue, A., Haase, P., Hoekstra, R., Horrocks, I., Ruttenberg, A., Sattler, U., et al.: OWL 2 web ontology language: Structural specification and functional-style syntax. W3C Working Draft, W3C (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pérez, J., Arenas, M., Gutierrez, C.: Semantics and Complexity of SPARQL. In: Cruz, I., Decker, S., Allemang, D., Preist, C., Schwabe, D., Mika, P., Uschold, M., Aroyo, L.M. (eds.) ISWC 2006. LNCS, vol. 4273, pp. 30–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ratiu, D., Deissenboeck, F.: Programs are knowledge bases. In: 14th IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, ICPC 2006, pp. 79–83 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ratiu, D., Feilkas, M., Jürjens, J., Keynes, M., Britain, G.: Extracting domain ontologies from domain specific APIs. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 2008), vol. 26. IEEE CS (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sirin, E., Parsia, B., Grau, B.C., Kalyanpur, A., Katz, Y.: Pellet: A practical owl-dl reasoner. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web 5(2), 51–53 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zeller, A., für Softwaretechnik, L.: Program analysis: A hierarchy. In: Proceedings of the ICSE Workshop on Dynamic Analysis (WODA 2003), pp. 6–9. Citeseer (2003)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang, Y.: An Ontology-based Program Comprehension Model. PhD thesis, Concordia University (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Newres Al Haider
    • 1
  • Benoit Gaudin
    • 2
  • John Murphy
    • 1
  1. 1.University College DublinIreland
  2. 2.University of LimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations