Knowledge Representation and Ontological Model based on Software Engineering Body of Knowledge as a tool to Evaluate Professional and Occupational Profiles

ABSTRACT

systems, and management development software.Moreover, a professional BOK meets the set of skills, knowledge, and attitudes required for professional domain Azuma et al. (2003).
The BOK is used as points of comparison mediation of powers between work, and academic contexts.For example in Muller, Riedlhuber, (2009), a model using DISCO II, it was proposed for the creation and comparison of profiles based on competencies.
In Garca (2007), it was proposed a model for competence and its components from SWEBOK.In R. P. K. M (2011), SWEBOK is used as a point of mediation for the comparison of academic profiles and the labor market.
In Azuma et al. (2003), a useful model is proposed not only in academia but also in industry, where SWEBOK specifies the Knowledge Areas (KAS) necessaries in this context.
In Stevens (2012), extend the research of Azuma et al. (2003), Muller, H., Riedlhuber F., (2009), associating skill levels of Bloom's taxonomy of knowledge areas SWEBOK profiles Guide Software Engineering: New Graduate, Graduate with four years of experience, and experienced software engineer working in a software engineering process group.
In Dunne et al. (2007), use a process based upon the IEEE-CS/ACM CE Body of Knowledge Recommendations found in the report "Computer Engineering 2005 Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Engineering.",where the process is divided into several steps: 1) Review of the Body of Knowledge in order to further partition the Recommendations into Required and Elective categories.
2) Determination of coverage level of the BOK areas as provided by the current program.
3) Identification of inadequacies or holes in coverage of the current program.4) Proposal of modifications to eliminate coverage holes in required areas.5) Implementation of proposed curriculum changes.6) Assessment and revision of curriculum changes.
In recent years, it has increased the interest of professionals in the development and management of ontologies to develop from scratch, with the aim of linking knowledge and providing a semantic sense Quezada, P., Garbajosa, J., and Enciso, L. (2016).
Some of the most widely used methods are as follows: METHONTOLOGY, On-To-Knowledge and DILIGENT UPM (2015).The methodologies used to development the ontological model is called NeOn.NeOn is based on nine stages, since there are several ways for building ontologies; NeOn scenarios are flexible, allowing combined scenarios, and allowing users to customize them.For the evaluation of the profiles, the following methodology of NeOn scenarios is used: Scenario 1: From specification to implementation.
PURPOSE: To develop ontology of BOK; a vocabulary to describe the terms associated with that domain it was created.SCOPE: The ontology was focused on domain of BOK.The proposal of this research it was study the structure of SWEBOK 2014 in order to evaluate the professional and occupational profiles Quezada, P., Garbajosa, J., and Enciso, L. ( 2016)

EXPECTED END USERS.
When a new ontology it was designed, it is important to evaluate possible users.In table 1, it is showed some stakeholders Quezada, P., Garbajosa, J., and Enciso, L. (2016).

Graduates.
Person who acquire an academic degree after complete the studies.

Stakeholders.
Many people, groups, companies, and other organizational or governmental entities have a stake in educational programs.
Requirements:  Functional Requirements: How is knowledge described?How to align labor or Occupational and professional profiles using SWEBOK 2014?
 Non-functional Requirements The ontology will be developed in English.
Scenario 2: Reusing and re-engineering non-ontological resources (NORs).The reuse of Non-ontological resources is the second activity of NeOn which is the same methodology for analyzing non-ontological resources.In table 2, the non-ontological resources necessary for the evaluation of profiles are described.For the definition of the ontological model of BOK, the basis it was SWEBOK are the same that are structured by KAS, which have several elements such as: Units of Knowledge (UK), including a hierarchy of topics Knowledge (TK), and within sub topics (KST): List of further reading, References, Taxonomies, List of acronyms and labor profiles and professionals requiring skills to define the levels of knowledge of a professional Bourque et (2003).The following ontological model has been developed based on the scenarios of NeOn methodology, which were taking for building scenarios 1, 2, and 3.In the figure 1 the UML model that support the ontology is showed.Step 2: Evaluation of profiles through ontological models.
The ontology proposal was used to evaluate the labor and professional profiles in the area of software engineering.General ontology concepts and properties described in Scenario 2 are made, as these are needed for evaluation.
To evaluate profiles it was used SWEBOK 2014, where only the Quality Knowledge Are (QKA) was taken account.The area is divided into Knowledge Units (KU), Knowledge Topics (KT), in order to deepen the concepts of knowledge and identify sub-topics.On the other hand, it was necessary to consider another level in the structure of BOK, where the topics will be more detailed Knowledge Subtopic (KS).The KS has addressed different knowledge and skills.In the same way, to develop a BOK it is necessary to take into account: Process Model, Deliverables, Organization, Technology focus, Tools, Assignment focus and Exercise domain Han, J. ( 2011).The sub-topics were extracted by experts Software Engineering, each sub-topic considered the breakdown of QKA.Quezada, P., Garbajosa, J., and Enciso, L. (2016) Experimentation.-To test our theory, an experiment in which 2 profiles were used.It is based on a macro algorithm that includes the following steps: Manual description experimentation.-Manual testing is performed based on the SWEBOK 2014 guide, by reference to the area of knowledge subtopics Quality.To get the result 1, the following comparisons were performed using a matrix intersection.R1 = (C3= ((C1=STQ vs PP) + (C2=STQ vs OP)/2) C1 = ∑comparations/Nro.l of comparations C2 = ∑comparations/Nro. of comparations C3 = (∑C1 + \∑C2)/\Nro.Of Subtopic Where: R1 = alignment between professional and job profiles C1 = Quality and Profiles (Skills) C2= Quality Subtopic and Jobs offerts C3 = Results C1 and C2 STQ = SWEBOK Topic Quality PP = Professional Profile OP = Ocupacional Profile Quezada, P., Garbajosa, J., and Enciso, L. ( 2016) In both crosses (C1 and C2), in order to obtain numerical data, if there is any similarity it is assigned one (1), otherwise, the field being analyzed is left in blank.Upon completion of the comparison result C1 and C2 in percentages for each subtopic, versus the professional profiles and occupational, respectively bids are obtained.Once the percentages obtained, we proceed to C3, which consisted on comparing the total percentages of the C1 and C2.Quezada, P., Garbajosa, J., and Enciso, L. (2016).In the figure 3, show the experimentation, and application of the evaluation.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.UML Model to Represent BOKThe model is supported by the structure of the SWEBOK 2014, with which it was possible to define the terminology of a domain of knowledge: the concepts that constitute the domain, and relationships between conceptsWatterson (1999).

Figure 3 .
Experimentation and application of evaluation

Table 3 .
Shows the breakdown of the subtopics found in the topics of QSKA are presented.

Selection of the occupational and professional profiles.
Given a corpus of both occupational offers and professional profiles, it was obtained from of universities and employment platforms of Ecuador, two samples were taken for evaluation with SWEBOK 2014 profiles, considering among them the naked eye that may have greater alignment with a possible minor alignment with the samples to be worked, are: