More exploring and discovering. I was able to find some ontologies for XBRL which others have created. See this web page: http://rhizomik.net/html/ontologies/bizontos/.
On that page, you see several ontologies which relate to XBRL:
- XBRL Instance: http://rhizomik.net/ontologies/2007/11/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.owl
- XBRL Linkbase: http://rhizomik.net/ontologies/2007/11/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.owl
- XLink: http://rhizomik.net/ontologies/2007/11/xlink-2003-12-31.owl
- XL (Low level stuff used by XLink: http://rhizomik.net/ontologies/2007/11/xl-2003-12-31.owl
- US GAAP Taxonomy Piece (note that this is an old version): http://rhizomik.net/ontologies/2008/07/us-gaap-ci-2005-02-28.owl
This is stuff is way, way, way too low a level to be even remotely useful in making use of XBRL information. Maybe this level is necessary, I really cannot tell yet. But, what is the utility of an OWL model for the XBRL syntax at this level? Even this level is really too low!
What I am attempting to do with my OWL model is to map the upper level stuff (financial reporting, multidimensional model, taxonomy concepts) to the lower level XBRL syntax which should ultimately be invisible to business users.
Perhaps my XBRL syntax level needs to be connected to the lower level stuff for some technical reason, I really don't know at this point.
Maybe I am missing something, but from what I have seen there appears to be a not seeing the forest through the trees situation when people are trying to reconcile how XBRL and RDF/OWL fit together.