Conceptual Model for Communication

(IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 Conceptual Model for Communication Sabah Al-Fedaghi Computer Engineering Department Kuwait University P.O. Box 5969 Safat 13060 Kuwait sabah@alfeda ghi.com Ala'a Alsaqa Computer Engineering Department Kuwait University P.O. Box 5969 Safat 13060 Kuwait eng_alaa_alsaqa@hotmail.com Zahra'a Fadel Computer Engineering Department Kuwait University P.O. Box 5969 Safat 13060 Kuwait z_fadel@hotmail.com Abstract —A variety of idea lized models of commu nication systems exist, and all may have something in common. Starting with Shannon’s communic ation model and ending with the OSI model, this paper p resents prog ressively more ad vanced forms of modeling of communication systems by tying communication models together based on the notion of flow. The basic communication process is divided into diffe rent spheres (sources, channels, and destinations), each wi th its own five interior stages: receiving, pro cessing, c reating, rel easing, an d transferrin g of information. The flow of information is ontologically distinguished from the flow of physical signals; accordingly, Shannon’s model, netw ork-based OSI models, and TCP/ IP are redesigned. Keywords-conceptual model, information communication, communication systems I. I NTRODUCTION Communicat ion is typically defined as a pro cess of sending and receiving. Such a communica tion process can be found in many discipli nes, ranging from psychology and sociol ogy to engineering, technol ogy, and artific ial intelligence. Consequently, great i nterest has been sh own in findin g an idealized communi cation model that pr ovides “both ge neral perspective and particul ar vantage points from which to ask questions and to i nterpret the raw stuff of observati on” [8]. A comm unication model is an idealized system atic representation of the comm unication pr ocess. Such m odels serve as standa rdization to ols, and they provi de the means to 1) question and interpret actual communicatio n systems that are diverse in their nature and purpose, 2) furnish order and structure to multifaceted communicat ion events , and 3) lead to insights into hypothetical ideas and relationships involved in commu nication. A variety of communicat ion system s models exist, an d “perhaps they all [have] something i n comm on” [12]. Shannon’s m odel of comm unication an d its variatio ns are the most comm on models adopt ed in ma ny fields. The se ven-laye r OSI model is wel l known as a refere nce model for desc ribing networks an d networ k applicati ons. It is a refere nce model for the five-layer TCP/IP model. The OSI model can also be extended to include a human perspective, as will be described in this paper. The nee d for a general comm unication m odel can be seen in the evolution of the original Shannon’s model b ased on efforts of engi neers to fi nd the most efficient wa y of transmitting elect rical signals. Ne vertheless, t he model has been enhanced to interp ret a ll instances of c ommuni cation, that is, to organize biologic al comm unication syst ems along the same lines as telecommunications systems, with the no tion of interactivity overcoming the lin earity of the orig inal model. Modeling com munication i s an evolut ionary pr ocess in which ne w concepts en hance and co mplement earlier communicat ion models. This paper present s one more step in the evoluti onary process of m odels with a p roposal to b ase modeling of comm unication on the notion of fl ow. It t ies communicat ion models together t hrough a flow model of communic ation that focuses on abstract description without involving details o f the communication env ironment. This flow-based model co ntributes to building an idealized communicat ion model through enhancin g and i ntegrati ng 29 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 different co nceptualizat ions of t he comm unication p rocess. It is different from other models in three main aspects: • Most curr ent commu nicatio n m odels treat participants (e.g., nodes) in the communicative act as a send/receive system. In the flow-based m odel, the interior anatomy of the participants in the communication process include s stages of receiving, proces sing, crea ting, releas e, and tran sfer of informat ion. This pr ovides m any advanta ges, such a s the ability to identify the participan t’s role in communication acts. For example, the sender m ay be just a mere receive-a nd-send agent (e.g., dum b terminal), or a source (c reator) of the trans ferred informati on, and so fort h. • Most current communication models do not explicitly distinguish among di ffere nt types of fl ow (e.g., information, messages, a nd signals). Such a conceptualization i s analogous t o representing t he gas, water, and electricity lines in the design of a building by one type of arro w in the design bl ueprint. In t he flow-based model, each type of t hing that flows has its own map o f flow that ca n trig ger other ty pes of fl ow. • Most current ideal ized comm unication models do not grant the ch annel of commun ication full status as a participant in th e communication process. In contrast, in our model, the chan nel incorporates full functionality equal to that of other participan ts; that is, it receives, processes, creates, releases, and transfe rs information, as will be described. II. M ODELS OF C OMMUNICA TION Hartley [6] was the first to quantify “signals as means to convey inform ation'” through the equation I = N log S, whe re I is the amount of inform ation each message contains, N is the number of signs i n a message, and S is the num ber of different signs in the vocabulary. Sha nnon form alized informat ion as reduction of uncert ainty: I = log2 C , where I i s the amount of information each message contains, and C is the number of possible choices. Shanno n and Weaver [ 11] point out that transmis sion in such a mod el conveys phy sical codes. The "meaning" is t aken out prior to t ransmission and rei nstated after reception through encoding an d decoding, respectively. Shannon’s model (Figu re 1) has influenced all communication m odels. Shann on al so introduced a mechanism that accounts for differences bet ween the transmi tted and received signals; this has evolve d into the current feedback concept. If such a model were applied to human com munication, “effectively, the model proposes a speaker consist ing only of a mind (the sou rce) and a m outh (the t ransmitter), and a listener consisting only of ears (the receiver) and a m ind (the destination). It th erefore totally fails to reflect the many intermediate cogn itive processing stag es” [12]. Accordingly, cognitive co mmunication mo dels have expan ded Shannon’s model to incorporat e some of these interm ediate cognit ive processing stages. S mith [12], as shown in Figu re 2, illustrates how at least some of this intermediate p rocessing can b e represented. The model now includes three in termediate layers at either end of the transmission c hannel. Transmitter (Encoder) Information source Channel Noise source Receiver (Decoder) Destination Figure 1. Shannon’s model of communication. Semantic system A Semantic system B Output syntax Output syntax Encode m essage and monitor feedback Encode m essage and monitor feedback Feedback Messages Node A Node B Figure 2. Idealized communication system (modified from Smit h [12] after Osgood and Sebeok [9]). 30 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 In our flow-based perspectiv e, Shannon’s model reflects a limited view of states of entities being commun icated, because in such a mod el information is ob served in either sent or received states. I mplicitly, the model in dicates that informatio n passes, or is transferred , through the presence of a channel in the model. Such a view is analog ous to conceptualizin g the notion of travel as transfer from one point and arrival at another point. In a m ore com prehensive view, the process of (air) travel includes the notion s of being received at the travel station (airport), processed (e.g., luggage and passports), released to boarding (waiting for boarding ), and actual transfer onto the plane. On t he other end, a fter being transferred , passengers arrive , are processed , released , and then transfer (leave for hotels). Similarly, inform ation in the comm unication stream is not just sent and r eceived, but also has repeated lifecycle states: received, processed (changing its form), created (generating information fr om information), released (e.g., waiting for cha nnel to be avai lable), and transferred. A basic claim in our communication model is th at the life cycle of information in any co mm unication system consists of iterations of stages according to a stat e diagram that will be described later. The five st ages are receiving, processi ng, creation, release, and transfer. Li fe cycle refers to the “birth” of a communicative act through in itiation of a flow of information directed to a certa in destination and the “decay” of such an act through the seizure o f flow of i nformation. The seizure or stop page of flow of i nformat ion can occur at any point in t he flow stream of inform ation re gardless of whether a destination is reached. The flow stream is successive stag es of the stages descri bed previou sly across diff erent partici pants’ boundaries. In addition, in our flow-based perspective, Shann on’s model does not reflect con ceptually the ontological n ature of communicat ion. For exam ple, it i s very well known that a communicat ion act involves informat ion, a message (sym bolic representation), and signals ( e .g., physical or electronic signals). The fl ow of these t hree types of thi ngs is represe nted by a single arrow between the se nder and receiver. Suc h a conceptualizatio n is analogous to representing the gas, water, and electricity lines in the design of a building by one type of arrow in the d esign blue print. Inf ormation i s usually created by the sender, while noise is cr eated in the channel. The noise is physical signals. Conceptually, this noise ough t not be mixed wit h random ness (entropy ) created at the source i n some applicat ions. Entropy is a “type of inf ormation,” while noise generated in the chan nel comprises physical signals. Of course, noise interweaves with messages while bein g converted t o signals for transmi ssion purposes. In the flow-based model, the thing that flows has its own map of flow that can trigger other types of flow. The criticisms outlined ab ove can be applied to the next majo r development in modeling of communication: the OSI model. III. OSI M ODEL The evolution of ideal ized communicati on models evolved with the seven-laye red Open System s Interconnection ( OSI) that includes many deta ils such as authentication, routing identification, gover ning, data com pression and decompression, and det ection of errors in transm ission and arranging for thei r correction. In this pa per, we concentrate on its main feature as a model of communication. The seven layers of the OSI model were establish ed in 1977 by the Internat ional Organiza tion for Standardi zation. It i s a reference tool for un derstanding data communications. It represents the entire proces s of transmitt ing data from one computer to another. It divides the com munications process into seven layers, as follows: Layer 7—Appli cation layer: This is the "end-user" level of communication. It is the level of prag matic exchange between minds [12]. It is the point of or igin of the message intended to be comm unicated by a se nder, an d the poi nt of fi nal arrival of the message as interprete d by a receiver. Layer 6—Pre sentation l ayer: This is the stage where s urface syntactic structure is created in outgoing messages and interpreted in incoming ones. In computer networks, this is the level at which data encryption and compression take place. Layer 5—Session layer: This lay er sets up, m anages, and terminates, when necessary, the lower layers of the communication link. It identifies and authen ticates the recipients an d controls t he passing of Layer 6 inf ormation downward and upward. It also synchronizes the activities of transmitting and receiving so that stations do not end up all talking at once. Layer 4—Tr ansport l ayer: This is where information from layers 5–7 is translated into a format compatible with the physical link. This proce ss incl udes error checking and peer- to-peer transm ission ackn owledgment . It be gins the p rocess of message fragmentation in to “pack ets,” manages the transfer session, and, in an analogy to human comm unication, frequently uses “facial e xpressions” and “ge stures” to exchange its Transport layer messages [12]. A receiving Transport layer assembles incom ing messages from its transmission packets back into units t hat can be processe d, such as words and phrases. Layer 3—Netw ork layer: This is where the transmission path is decided. This layer is needed only in large networks where there are opti onal routes bet ween nodes . Layer 2— Data Lin k layer: This is where the information is formed into transmittable signal strings utilizing such instrument s as hubs and s witches. Layer 1—Ph ysical layer : This is the bit-level transmission layer. It transmits the signals in a particular format characterized by connector t ype s, cabl e types, voltages, and pin-outs. 31 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 Figure 3 illustrates the OSI communication system between two nodes. The OSI model expl ains networki ng in gener al term s. It has been used as an education al tool and as an illustration of interactions between comm unication protocol suites and devices. Again, as with Shannon’ s model, we see that the OSI model is basically a send/ receive model. The seven lay ers are transformati ons of different t hings that flow. To simplify, a user’s information is tran sformed to messages that are transformed to sign als; thus, the thin g that flows is different along the communicat ion chain. These characteristics are conceptually disturbi ng. To complete the picture of im portant concept ualizations of communication, we next describe the m odel of Transmi ssion Control Prot ocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/ IP). IV. TCP/IP MODEL The Internet has give n rise to TCP/IP (Tra nsmission Control Prot ocol/Internet Protocol) com munication prot ocols. TCP/IP includes five layers that corresp ond in general to the OSI model (see Figure 4) and provi des a fram ework for va rious protocols suc h as HTTP (whi ch runs the Wor ld Wide Web) and FTP. The five layers of TCP/IP are described as follows: Application (Layer 5): Handles everythi ng else han dled in the lower layers. Transport (L ayer 4): Mana ges all aspects of data routing and delivery, including session initiatio n, error control, an d sequence checking. Internet (Layer 3): Res ponsible for dat a addressing, transmission, and packet fragmentatio n and reassembly. Network access (Layer 2): Specifies proce dures for transmitting data across the network, including how to access the physical medium. Physical (L ayer 1): Covers the physical interface between a data transm ission de vice and a t ransmission m edium o r network. V. THE FLOW MODEL The flow model (FM) was intr oduced by Al -Fedaghi and has been used since 2006 in se veral appli cations such as description of i nformat ion flow. While this s ection reviews the basic seeking, information security, and database access control aspects of the model to make the paper self-contained, it a lso presents new illustrations o f the model. Application layer Presentation layer Session layer Transport layer Network la yer Data link layer Physical layer Node A Application layer Presentation layer Session layer Transport layer Network la yer Data link layer Physical layer Node B Transmission Channel Figure 3. Seven-layer communication system (modified from Smith [12], simplified from Purser, 1987). TCP/IP model OSI model Application layer Presentation layer Session layer Transport layer Data link layer Physical layer Network la yer Transport layer Network la yer Data link layer Physical layer Figure 4. TCP/IP layers mapped to the OSI layers. Application layer 32 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 FM has a num ber of different com ponents and uses a spatial assembly of these compon ents relative to each other and to time, and it sho ws the links between th e components that indicate the flow of item s. To simplify this review of FM , we introduce flow i n terms of inform ation flow. Informat ion goes throug h a sequence of stat es as it moves through stages of its lifecycle, as follows: 1) Inform ation is received (i.e., it arrives at a new s phere, similar to passenge rs arriving at an airport). 2) Information is processed (i.e., it is subjected to some type of process , e.g., com p ressed, translated, mined). 3) Inform ation is discl osed/release d (i.e., it is designated as released informat ion, ready to m ove outside the c urrent sphere, such as passengers rea dy to depart from an airport). 4) Information is transferred (disclosed) to another s phere (e.g., from a cu stomer’s sphere to a retailer’s sphere). 5) Inform ation is created (i.e., it is gener ated as a new piece of information using diffe rent m ethods such as data mining). 6) Inform ation is used (i.e., it is utilized in some action, analogous to police rushing to a criminal’s hideout after receiving an inform ant’s tip). Using inform ation indicates directing or diverting the i nformat ion flow t o another ty pe of flow such as actions. We call this poi nt a gate way in the flow. 7) Inform ation is store d . Thus, it rem ains in a stable state without change un til it is brought back to the stream of flow again. 8) Inform ation is destroyed . The first five states of information form the main stages of the stream of flow, as illustrated in Figure 5. When information is stored, it is i n a substate because it occurs at different stages: information th at is created (stored created informati on), processed ( stored processe d inform ation), and received (stored receive d/row information). The five-stage schem e can be applied to humans and to organizations. It is re usable becau se a copy of it is assigne d to each agent or entity. Consider an information sphere that includes a sm all organization with tw o departm ents; it i s made up of t hree inform ation schemes: one for the organizat ion at large, and one for each depa rtment. Figure 6 shows the internal information flow in such a sphere. Figure 6. Information flow within a com pany and its two departments. Created Received Disclosed Processed Transfer Created Received Disclosed Processed Transfer Created Received Disclosed Processed Transfer Figure 5. Inform ation states in FM. Created Received Disclosed Processed Transfer 33 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 The five in formati on states are t he only possible “existence” patterns in the stream of information. To follow the inform ation as it m oves along different pat hs, we can start at any point in the stream. Supp ose that information ente rs the proce ssing stag e, where it is su bjected to some process. The following are ultimate possibilities: 1) It is stored. 2) It is dest royed. 3) It is di sclosed and transferr ed to anothe r sphe re. 4) It is proce ssed in such a way that it generat es new information (e.g., comparing certain statistics generates that Smith is a risk ). 6) It trig gers anot her type of flow. F or exam ple, upon receiving patient health informa tion, the physician takes some action such a s perform ing medical t reatment. Actions ca n also be received, processe d, created, released, an d communicated. Notice that the arrows betwe e n Release on one hand and the stage of Received, Processed., a nd Created are bidirectional. This flow in opposite directions accounts for the case when it is not possible to communicate info rm ation, as in the case of a broken channel. In th is case , at the Release stage, the informati on can be dest royed after a cert ain period, st ored indefinitely, or returned to the releaser at the receiving, processing, or creation stages. VI. F LOW -B ASED A PPROACH TO S HANNON ' S M ODEL The flow m odel assum es that parties invol ved in the communication act are repre sented by the five components or stages: receiving, processing, cr eation, release, and tran sfer. According to Shannon, th e different elements involved in communicat ion inform ation are so urce, transmitter, channel, receiver, and destination. Source/Transmitter The source produces messages to be communicated to the receiving terminal. FM extends this side of comm unication to highlight the “origin” of the message, whether received from outside the source , or created within the source; thus, the source can be described as creator or recipient, in addition to being a sende r of the m essage. Such a qualificat ion may be significant in certain circumst ances (e.g., networking where communication involves a c hain of two-part y exchanges). The transmitter converts the message to a signal suitab le for transm ission over t he channel. In FM, t he source has two spheres: the messages sphere and the signal sphere. Thus, this element in Shannon’s model refl ects the source as a processor that triggers the creation of signals that are release d and transmitted. Figure 7 show s the conceptualizat ion of the source i n FM. First, this conceptualization distingu ishes explicitly between two flowthi ngs: inform ation and signals, thus sepa rating the flow of inf ormation from t he flow of sig nals. Shannon’s information th eory makes a clear distinction between sig nals and i nformati on. In ma ny comm unication systems, a signals transmission is in volved o nly in t ransferri ng data, without the direct intention that data conveys informat ion. In c onventi onal t erminol ogy, th e notion of data is introduced as a form of information more suitable for transmission. Looking at data from the FM point of view, data is processed (st age in FM) as di gitally en coded inf ormation. We thus have two ways to concep tualize the relationship between infor mation and data. If dat a is viewed as a different flowthing from information, then anothe r sphere (besides information and signal) for data is distinguish ed in FM; however, in the comm unication context, wit hout loss o f generality, we view data as a form of processed inf ormation. Receive Release Create Process: information to data Create Transmit OR Information sp here Signal sphere Figure 7. Conceptualization of the source in the communication process. Source 34 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 Receiver/Destination Shannon ’s mod el abstr acts transmission as a component of the source and receiving as a compone nt of the destinati on. This is a reasonable way to look at t he communication process, because “transmi ssion” requires a deliberate act of message releasing, and “receivi ng” re quires another deliberate act of accepting t he message. Even if “transm ission” is conceptualize d as being i n the channel proper, the notions of “transmission” and “receiving” a re still decisions to be made at the source and d estination, respectively. For example, it is possible that a message (e.g., a n e-mail) arrives at its destination; h owever, t he comm unication pr ocess is not completed if the receiver deletes it without reading it. One objection to Sha nnon’s m odel is that “the receiver is constantly being fed pieces of in formation with no choice in the matter—willingly or unwilling ly” [7]. FM is a more suitable conceptual representation since it divides communication into two types: on e under the control of the sender or receiver and one in the cha nnel. Channel If the “transmission channel” carries the signal from its “transmitter” to a “receiver” (e.g., de vice), then this physical activity is different from the abstr act pre/post transfer stages of “releasing” and “receiving” the message at the source a nd destination spheres. Furthermore, the nature of th e channel is different f rom the “nat ure” of the source and the destination . Clearly, the source and the destination d eal first with information, whereas the cha nnel is a “physical sphere” that deals (in this case) wit h physical signals. Therefore, the basic thing that is flowing (“tran smitted” and “received” in the source and destination , respectively) is information, while the thing that flows in the channel is only a physical sig nal. The message has informational form when it is released by the source and prior to chann el transmission, and it returns to such a form again after ch annel transmission, when it is received in the destination. The point here is that th e basic flowthing at source and destination is ontologically differe nt (e.g., a different species) from the flowthing in the chann el. Figure 8 illustrates this concept throug h the FM’s thr ee spheres: sources, cha nnels, and destinations. Note th at the “signal” sphere on both sides has the five sta ges as describe d in Figure 7. The stag es of the phys ical spher e are dark ened to emphasize that these are stages of flow of physical signals, whereas in the othe r two information sphe res, the stages are in a flow of pieces of inform ation. The channel is a flow system just as the source and the destination are. T he channel certainly receives, communicates, releases, processes, a nd creates physical signals (e.g., noi se). The differe nce is that the channel is solely a physical sphere; theref ore, Shannon’s model is really a flat (with no internal structure) partial conceptual view of the channel. Implicitly, we can deduce the following from Shan non’s m odel: • Creation stage exists, dedu ced t hrough the concept of noise. • The channel’s receiving/releasing/tra nsfer stages are implied by the links to source and d estination. • The proce ssing stage of the ch annel can be deduced by its mere act of carrying si gnals. The FM conce ptualization of diffe rent sphe res, each wi th its own stag es, clar ifies the co nceptu al pictur e of the flow from source t o destination across the channel . The flow o f information in the source never crosses between the transfer stages of the source and the chan nel, because inform ation flow is ontologi cally distinct from phy sical signal fl ow. Note t hat the a r rows between the source and the channel and between the channel and the destinati on a re dotted arrows. They are triggering or transforma tion arrows and not flow arrows. Th e abstract entity “information” cannot simply flo w to or from the physical infosphere; rather, information triggers coded events in the physical sphere and is triggered by events in that sphere. Th us, in Figure 8, the flow of inform ation leads t o the emergence of physical signals at the channel. On the other hand, flow is possible if the things that flow are of the same kind . Transfer Creation Processing Releasing Receiving Transfer Creation Processing Releasing Receiving Transfer Creation Releasin Processing Receiving Transfer Transfer Figure 8. FM version of Shannon's model of co mmunication. Signals Signals Sender/ Source Channel Receiver/ destination 35 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 Consider Fi gure 9, w hich shows channel-le ss communication. The tw o spheres can be two coupled electrical systems with current runni ng between them . If “things t hat flow” were all of t h e same kind , we would not need cha nnels. On the other hand, it is difficult to see such ch annel-less coupling bet ween inform ation sphe res. Inf ormation i s an abstract entity, so observable move ment from one information sphere to a nother needs som e type of chan nel. VII. HUMAN-MA CHINE COMMUNICAT ION Consider the relatio nship in volved i n the trig gering mechanism between diff erent information spheres. Figure 10 shows an FM descriptio n of info rmati on flow betwee n two persons. First, information in th e abstract information sphere of the person triggers electrical signals in th e person’s physiologi cal sphere t hat flow from t he mind/brai n down t he nervous system into muscles to, say, the mouth. This physiological (body) sp here can also be model ed as a five- stage sphere. Transfer Creation Releasing Processing Receiving Creation Processing Releasing Receiving Transfer Figure 9. FM version of direct co mmunication between tw o spheres with the same types of flowing elements. Figure 10. FM modeling of transfer of in f ormation from one person to another. Releasin g Processin g Creation Receivin g Sender’s abstract (Mental) infosphere Transfer Transfer Processing Creation Releasing Receiving Sender’s physiological (Body) sphere Physical (signal) sphere Releasing Processing Creation Receiving Transfer Person 1 Releasin g Processin g Creation Receivin g Receiver’s abstract (mental) infosphere Transfer Receiver’s physiologic al (body) sphere Transfer Processing Creation Releasing Receiving Person 2 36 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 Notice that the model can be appl ied to “thi ngs that fl ow” or flowthings. Flowthings are th ings that can be received, processed, created, released, and tra nsferred. They include information, electrical signals, m a terials (as in supply chains), abstract things (e.g., customer orders), and even physiological “things” (e.g., thoughts), and physical actions. Thus, t he physiological system can be viewed as a communication system where electrical signals fl ow from t he brain to, say, the mouth. The ( electrical) signal in the physi ological sphere triggers a sound wav e signal in the physical sphere thro ugh movem ent of the m outh. This signal in th e physical sph ere reaches the ear of t he receiver and trigge rs an electrical signal in the physiological sphere of th at receiver. This physiological signal in turn reaches the i nformation sphere in the receiver' s brain. In this scenario, three elements can be id entified: the two persons and t he (physical) environm ent. Each pers on has t wo sub-spheres: t he physiologi cal sphere ( flow of electr ical signals), an d the inform ational sphere (flow of “a bstract things” called info rmation). The emergence of t riggered flow appears in any stage of the sphere. For example, the informati on sphere may t rigger the physi ological sp here to create a signal (creation stage), or it may trigger a signal that is already stored (in one of the stages) in the physiologi cal sphere (reflexes). Osgood and Se beok’s [9] ideali zed communication model, shown in Figure 1, mi xes the ontologies or spheres of fl ow between the sender and the receiver. The arrows further confuse the conceptual picture. Inside no des (see Figure 1), the arrows seem to indicate t ransformation of different form s of information (s emantic, sy ntax, encode d); however, between nodes, the arrows seem to denote flow of si gnals. The notati ons are not clear in comparison with Figure 10. The fig ure has five spheres with precisely declared transform ations and sem antics of flow. VIII. NETWORK MODEL Where does the network communication model fit into this framework o f communicat ion of inform ation? Again, examining the ISO model, we notice the following: Layer 7: The application is not the application itself, although some applicat ions m ay perform so me of its f unctions . Layer 6: The Presentation layer mixes the functions of spheres (sender’s a nd receive r’s) with those of cha nnels. The sender (by implication als o applied to the receiver) may prepare the m essage for c ommunicat ion, but t his is diff erent from channels processing the si gnal. For exam ple, the sende r may compress or encrypt the me ssage, but such processes are different from com pression and encryptio n of the c hannel. Layer 5 : The Session (data flow control) layer m anages the lower layers of the communica tion link . It seems also to include functions that can be located in the sender’s and channel’s domains. For example, terminating the communicat ion can be perform ed by t he channel or by t he sender. Layer 4: The Transport layer includes suc h functions as converting add ress forms (e.g., eng.ku.edu into 110.10.88) , checking erro rs, acknowle dging, confi r ming the arri val of the entire message/signal, etc. Some of these, also, seem to be operations that can (possibly ) be perform ed by the send er (on the message) and by the channel. This layer is said to be comparable to “human com muni cation [that] frequently uses facial expression a nd gesture t o exchange its Transp ort Layer messages. A recei ving station' s Transport La yer has the ta sk of concatenating i ncoming m essages back fr om their transmission packets into semantically ‘processable’ un its such as words and phrases” [12]. Layers 1–3: Th ese layers seem to be in the domain of the channel. Note that in d evel oping a concept ual idealized communication system, we are not concerned with a particular means or technology, for ex ample, e -mail, t elephone , conversation so und, address of physical lot, 3 2-bit IP address, multiple xing usi ng ports, ZIP code s, envel opes, datag ram s, routers, a nd so on. • Layer 1: This layer is the carrier of physical (electrical and mechanical) “data” strea m between the sender and receiver. It is the bits flow la yer. Logically, it is a singl e platform that links them. • Layer 2 : The data l ink provi des synchr onizati on for the physical level. It is the packet flow layer. Logically, it is split into two parts: the sending en d and the receivi ng end. • Layer 3 : The network layer translates th e destination into a network address and selects a route for messages. It is the packet preparing, assem bling, and sequencing layer. In our case, we conc entrate only on sender/receiver communication. In the OSI model, the information starts at the app lication layer that flows down the stack with some extra information as the message flows, until it r eaches the channel. It makes distinctions between lowe r-level data -link and t ransport layers and the higher-level appli cation layers (levels 5–7). Information is to be situated at these higher levels of the model. Again, if we consider data as a form of informatio n, informati on is encoded in di gital data that can be processed (e.g. , comp ress ed, en coded E therne t → fiber-optic) and transmitted as signals. The precise points of switch ing from information to data and th en to signals are not precise in the OSI model. Additionally, the model does not give a precise poin t of crossing from the source s/sender to the c hannel since som e functions i n the lowe r layers are mi xed sender a nd cha nnel functions. Adding communication information, stripping information, compression/decompression, encryption/decryption, e rror check ing, etc. can be performed by the sender/receiver a nd/or by the channel in preparation for and at the end of transmission. 37 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 We propose to completely separate these spheres, as shown in Figure 11. The sender, channel, and receiver each has five stages in the FM. The dotted arrows in the figure are recognition that information/data flow is distin guished from signal flow. Adding diffe rent stages to the channel i nvites diffe rent possibilities to be exp lored. For example, the channel is not an implicit participant in the commun ication act; rather, it is fully represented as a com municati on sphere of signals flow. It receives, processes, creates , releases, and comm unicates signals. Receiving and comm unication are the standard functions of channels in cu rrent communication models. Creation in the channel is manifested by noise (a type of “signal”) generated in the chann el. Noise is explicitly recognized in the channel. The channel may “delay” delivering the signal (e.g., traffic cong estion), thus putting it in the released state. IX. OSI MODEL EXTENSION For humans, three ad ditional layers are i ntroduced in the research literature [5]. To show the applicab ility of the flow- based approa ch to different generalizat ions of curre nt communication models, we concentrate on the HCI (Human Computer Inte raction) m odel as an extensi on of the seven- layer OSI. It is proposed as a way to facilitate discussions between HCI practitioners on one hand, and application and network de velope rs on the othe r. It exte nds the OSI m odel upward in a fashion consistent with the original OSI vision. The HCI model consists of t hree layers representing people’s experience with the de vices and services offered by technology [5]. These layers are as follo ws: Layer 3— Human Need s : This layer “captures t he essence of why a user would interact with technolog y; to get something done to satisfy a need” [5]. Needs include communication, acquisition of goods and knowledge, en tertainment, etc. Layer 2— Human Performance : This layer captures the informati on processing features a nd limi tations of users. "Many [hum an performance capacities] are direct results of t he properti es of the sensory o rgans and t he brain . . . Audio and vi deo codices ta ke advanta ge of the spati al and acoustic band pass nat ure of hum an perception" [5] . Layer 1— Display : This layer “represents that aspect of the hardware, software, and interfaces that a use r experiences. Here at the lowest HCI layer a re presentation of the data is created out of signals t hat the human ca nnot understand directly (packets, bits, etc.) and that rep resentation is displayed on a device of s ome sort (print er, force-fee dback pointer, etc.) and used as input to Layer 9. It also works in the opposite direction to translate u ser output into a form that the OSI layers ca n understa nd" [5]. The three HCI layers are conceived as re presenting three distinct aspects of HCI that can be summarized as follows: 1) What a us er wants to do in the abst ract sense (i.e., needs). 2) How those needs a re acted upon by th e human. 3) The artifacts that the user em ploys (hard ware, soft ware, etc.). “This common conceptual ground can be used to link applications to hu man needs as a function of netw ork capabilities. The framework also helps in the discovery and localization of applicati on perf ormance probl ems and optimization opportun ities" [5]. Creation Receivin Processing Disclose Transfer Application Presentation Session Transport Creation Creation Receiving Receiving Processing Processin Disclose Disclose Transfer Application Presentation Session Transport Transfer Presentation Session Transport Network Datalink Physical Session Transport Network Datal i nk Presentation Figure 11. Idealized FM communication model. Sender Channel Receiver 38 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 Figure 12 shows a possible flow repr esentation that involves needs, sign als, actions, and information. In the FM scheme, a h uman being engages with seve ral sphe res according to discrete “things that flow.” Similar to our us e of pieces of information, we also view a need as a disc rete psychological un it; thus, a sphere of needs can be assembled, as in the case of a n informational sphere. Needs can be received, processed, created, released, and transferre d. Received needs (desires) ca n be conceptualized as “ planting” needs in the sense of “im porting” a desire, as in the ca se of commercials that make a person feel a need for som ething (e.g., drinking a soft drink). The flow of needs is initiated in two ways: 1) Internal creation of needs that flow to t he release and transfer stages and are manifest ed as desire f or something. 2) Im planting (receiving) of needs that may procee d in the needs flow m odel. In Figure 12, we assume creat ed needs t hat trigger creation of (cognitive) information (e.g., a request) that triggers creation of signals that trigger user’s actions (e.g., clicking on the mouse or pr essing on the k eyboard). These actions are applied to peripherals; thus, actions flow in, say, a keyboard (e.g., m ovement of keys) that tri gger t he creation of signals that flow from the keyboard to the computer. This process reaches th e relevant layers in the OSI model and he nce proceeds i n the com municati on stream. I n such a commun ication scheme, we find the FM model applied uniformly at different levels: psychological, cognitive, physical signal, physical actions, etc. X. FLO W-BASED MODEL FOR TCP/IP MODEL Similar to the OSI model, the flow-based approach can be applied to conceptu alize the TCP/IP layers. Figure 13 shows the FM that corres ponds to th e five layers of TCP/ IP. Similar to the process in the flow-based OSI model, informati on/signals fl ow from the sender through the cha nnel to the recipient. Eac h receiver, recepient, a nd channel has five stages of flow. The channel receives, processes, creates, releases, and transfers signals. Peripherals (e.g., keyboard, mouse) Human Create Process Information Create Signals Create Transfer Receive Process Action Create Transfer Release Signal Computer Create Needs Create Transfer Release Action Transfer Process Signal Figure 12. Possible flows present in hu man-computer interaction. 39 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 X. CONCLUSION The flow m odel enha nces conce ptualizati on of the communicat ion process . It intro duces two main point s: 1) Instead of modeling com municati on spheres as close d boxes, the inte rior anatom y of different spheres includes five standard stages. 2) The comm unication proces s is modele d as the movem ent of “thin gs that flow,” suc h as in formati on and physical signals. These features greatly im prove idealized models of communication utilized in diverse areas of application. For example, in psychology, a human information system may b e modeled as a five-stage syste m wit h its own “thin gs that flow” (e.g., thought) during participation in the communicative act. R EFERENCES [1] S. Al-Fedaghi. “Conceptualizing e ffects and uses of information. ” Information Seeking in Context conference (ISIC 2008), Vilnius, Lithuania, September 17–20, 2008. [2] S. Al-Fedaghi, K. Al-Saqabi and B. Thalheim. “Inform ation stream based model for organizing secur ity .” Symposium on Requirem ents Engineering for Inform ation Security, Barcelona, Spain, March 4–7, 2008. [3] S. Al-Fedaghi. “Beyond purpose-ba sed privacy access control.” The 18th Australasian Database Conferen ce, Ballarat, Australia, January 29– February 2, 2007. [4] S. Al-Fedaghi. “Some aspects of personal information theory .” 7th Annual IEEE Informati on Assurance Workshop, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, 2006. [5] B. Bauer and A. S. Patrick. “A hu man factors extension to the seven- layer OSI reference model.” 2004. Retrieved from http://www.andrewpatrick.ca/OSI/10layer.ht ml [6] R. V. L. Hartley. “Transm ission of information.” Bell System Technical Journal, 7, 535-563, 1928. [7] M. McLuhan. Understanding Media: The Extensions of M an. New York: The New American Library , 1964. Excerpt: “Interpr etations with Limitations: A Critical Essay on the Mathematical Theory of Communication” at http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~andreabautista/ [8] C. D. Mortensen. Communication: The Study of Human Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972. [9] C. E. Osgood and T. A. Sebeok (Eds.) . Psycholinguistics: A Survey of Theory and Research Problems. Bloom ington: Indiana University Press, 1965. [10] C. E. Shannon. “The mathematical theory of communication.” Bell Telephone System Journal, 27, 379-423, 1948 . http://cm.bell- labs.com/cm/ms/what/shanno nday/shannon194 8.pdf [11] C. E. Shannon and W. Weaver. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949. [12] D. J. Smith. “Shannonian comm unication theory and biological communication.” 2003. Retrieved M arch 2008 from http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co. uk/shannonian-theory.html [13] J. Bowers. “A communication m odel.” 2006. Retrieved from http://www.jerf.org/writings/com municationEthics/node4.html Figure 13. FM version of TCP-IP model of communication. Creation Receiving Processing Disclose Creation Creation Receiving Receivi Processing Processing Disclose Disclose Transfer Internet Transport Network Ph y sical Internet Transport Network Application Transfer A pp lication Trans p ort Transfer A pp lication Trans p ort Application Sender Channel Recipient 40 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500 (IJCSIS) International Journal o f Comput er Science and Info rmation Security, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2009 AUTHORS P ROFILE Sabah Al-Fedaghi holds an MS and a PhD in computer science from Northwestern University, Evanston, Illi nois, and a BS in co mputer science from Arizona State University, T empe. He has published papers in journals and contributed to conferences on topics in database system s, natural language processing, inform ation systems, inform ation privacy, information security, and information ethics. He is an associate professor in the Computer Engineering Department, Kuwait Univer sity. He previously worked as a programmer at the Kuwait Oil Company and headed the Electrical and Computer Engineering Departm ent (1991–1994) and the Computer Engineering Department ( 2000–2007). Ala'a Al-Sakka : Bachelor in Computer Engi neering, Kuwait University, Cisco CCNA-1&2. She is Member of the Association for Computer Machinery (ACM). H er research intere sts include co mputer network, and computer and architecture. Zahra'a Fadel : Bachelor in Computer Engi neering, Kuwait University. She is a member of the Association for Com puter Machinery (ACM). Her rese arch interests include database systems, Com puter network, and inform ation security. 41 http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ ISSN 1947-5500