Paper detail

BOLD: An Ontology-based Log Debugger for C Programs

The different activities related to debugging such as program instrumentation, representation of execution trace and analysis of trace are not typically performed in an unified framework. We propose \textit{BOLD}, an Ontology-based Log Debugger to unify and standardize the activities in debugging. The syntactical information of programs can be represented in the from of Resource Description Framework (RDF) triples. Using the BOLD framework, the programs can be automatically instrumented by using declarative specifications over these triples. A salient feature of the framework is to store the execution trace of the program also as RDF triples called \textit{trace triples}. These triples can be queried to implement the common debug operations. The novelty of the framework is to abstract these triples as \textit{spans} for high-level reasoning. A span gives a way of examining the values of a particular variable over certain portion of the program execution. The properties of the spans are defined formally as a Web Ontology Language (OWL) ontology called \textit{Program Debug (PD) Ontology}. Using the span abstraction and PD ontology, end-users can debug a given buggy program in a standard manner. A notable feature of using ontology is that users can accurately debug in some cases of missing information, which can be practically useful. To demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed framework, we have debugged the programs in a standard bug benchmark suite Software-artifact Infrastructure Repository (SIR). Experiments show that the querying time is almost the same as in \texttt{gdb}. The reasoning time depends on the sub-language of OWL. We find that the expressibility offered by OWL-DL language is sufficient for the bugs in SIR programs; but to achieve scalability in reasoning, a restricted OWL-RL language is required.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.